Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson
180 Cal. Rptr. 496, 30 Cal.3d 721, 640 P.2d 115 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits business establishments, including landlords of apartment complexes, from engaging in arbitrary discrimination by instituting a blanket policy of excluding all families with minor children.
Facts:
- In January 1974, Stephen and Lois Wolfson signed a one-year lease for an apartment at the Marina Point complex, which at the time rented to families with children.
- The standard lease form contained a clause requiring the landlord's written permission for minors under 18 to reside in the unit.
- In October 1974, Marina Point changed its rental policy to exclude any new families with children, though it allowed existing families with children to remain.
- In September 1975, Lois Wolfson gave birth to a son, Adam, who then lived with his parents in their Marina Point apartment.
- The Wolfsons renewed their lease in February 1975 and again in February 1976.
- In the fall of 1976, Marina Point's manager learned of Adam's presence and subsequently informed the Wolfsons that their lease would not be renewed solely because they had a child.
Procedural Posture:
- Marina Point, Ltd. (landlord) filed an unlawful detainer action against Stephen and Lois Wolfson in municipal court to evict them.
- The Wolfsons asserted as a defense that the eviction was based on an illegal policy of discriminating against families with children.
- The municipal court found for the landlord, Marina Point, holding that the exclusionary policy was a reasonable business practice and did not violate the Unruh Act.
- The Wolfsons appealed the judgment of the municipal court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's blanket policy of refusing to rent apartments to all families with minor children constitute arbitrary discrimination that violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
Yes, a landlord's blanket policy of refusing to rent to all families with children violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Act's list of prohibited bases of discrimination (race, sex, etc.) is illustrative, not restrictive, and intends to prohibit all arbitrary discrimination by business establishments. A business cannot exclude an entire class of individuals based on a generalized prediction that the class as a whole is more likely to engage in misconduct; individuals must be judged on their own conduct. While a landlord may enforce reasonable deportment rules, a broad, status-based exclusionary policy that deprives innocent individuals of access to housing is not a permissible regulation. An ordinary apartment complex is not a specialized facility, such as a retirement community or a bar, where the exclusion of children would be justified by the nature of the enterprise.
Dissenting - Richardson, J.
No, the landlord's policy does not violate the Unruh Act. The Act permits reasonable regulations that are rationally related to the services performed and facilities provided. The trial court found that the Marina Point complex was designed for adults, with facilities like deep swimming pools and ungated access to the ocean that pose dangers to children. Therefore, the landlord's policy of excluding children is a reasonable regulation rationally related to the specific nature of the facilities. The law should accommodate the right of middle-aged and older citizens to live in a quiet, tranquil environment of their choice, which is what this policy allows.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the scope of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by establishing that its prohibition against arbitrary discrimination includes discrimination based on familial status (the presence of children). The ruling clarifies that the enumerated categories in the statute are not exhaustive and rejects the use of class-based stereotypes as a legitimate business justification for exclusion in public accommodations like housing. By requiring businesses to assess individuals based on their own conduct rather than group generalizations, the case strengthens protections for families and limits the discretion of landlords and other business proprietors, setting a powerful precedent against status-based discrimination.
