Latest news with #UnruhAct
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Yahoo
Adults-only hotels are all over California. Are they even legal?
Can hotels legally ban children? With spring breaks starting momentarily and summer vacations not far away, the question is puzzling a wide scope of California travelers — parents booking their next family vacation as well as adults looking for a child-free escape. And the answer is complicated. The issue flared in February when the Alila Marea Beach Resort in Encinitas, part of the Hyatt hotel empire, announced it would exclude children as overnight guests, thus becoming the self-described "only adults-only oceanfront resort in Southern California." Read more: High-end San Diego County resort bans children from overnight stays This move at a high-profile beachfront property sparked a debate about state law and hotels' obligations and has turned eyes on other California hotels that exclude children. In the Palm Springs area, the Colony Palms, the Fleur Noire, the Ingleside Estate and La Maison Palm Springs are among the lodgings whose websites say they are adults-only. The Whisky Hotel, which opened March 12 in Hollywood, promotes itself similarly. "We cater to adults only, because that's kind of our vision," said Whisky Hotel general manager Alan Esparza, noting the grown-up atmosphere in the hotel's Hollywood neighborhood. Still, in a pinch, Esparza said, "We make exceptions." The focus of the conversation is Section 51 of the state's Civil Code, widely known as the Unruh Act, which is designed to prevent discrimination by race, religion, sexual orientation and 10 other "protected characteristics." Attorneys, industry veterans and consumer advocates have cited this act when asserting that banning children from hotels is illegal. However, Section 51 doesn't specify age as a protected attribute, and state officials do permit rental car companies to refuse rentals to drivers under 25. But California courts have decided that the Unruh Act prohibits landlords from refusing to rent to families with children. Asked if it's legal for a California hotel to ban children, a representative from the state Civil Rights Department said via email that "the law's application with respect to age discrimination depends on the specific facts and circumstances." The state Attorney General's press office was equally vague, saying, "We are unable to provide legal advice or analysis." Neither agency cited legal precedents or earlier cases. Until state officials provide more clarity, industry veterans and consumer advocates suggested, families should take care to make sure of a hotel's policy before booking. That might mean talking to a reservations agent before making a reservation online. "I think it's really problematic legally" to ban children. "I'm not sure why it hasn't been challenged before," said Jamie Court, president of Los Angeles-based A hotel "is a place of public accommodation and you're discriminating based on family status." In Court's view, "Someone can sue. But it should be the attorney general who is going to court if the hotels don't back down after a warning. And it should be the attorney general writing warning letters. ... I don't know why the A.G. and the state have become so timid." Read more: 72 awesome things to do with kids in L.A. before they grow up In a 2023 handout to its members, the California Hotel & Lodging Assn. warned hoteliers that the Unruh Act "prohibits hotels from discriminating against minors based on age," adding, "Some lodging operators assume that because some young children or other minors might engage in improper conduct, the hotel has a right to refuse accommodations. This is a dangerous misconception." Even when minors are unaccompanied, the association wrote, "It is unlawful to have a blanket policy" prohibiting them. However, the association said, a hotel "can refuse to accommodate individual children and their parents" if there is "just cause." The association's spokesman declined to comment on any specific cases. Another industry veteran surprised by the situation is Laurie E. Sherwood, a partner at the Irvine-based law firm Walsworth, who has handled travel-related cases for close to 30 years. "My initial, gut-level reaction is that hotels are places of public accommodation," Sherwood said, and that "it's a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act because you're excluding families with children." Many California hotels have finessed the issue by restricting children's access without banning them. Some hotels, like the River Lodge Paso Robles, officially welcome children but ban anyone under 21 from the pool and hot tub. Other hotels, such as the elite Post Ranch Inn in Big Sur, limit occupancy to two people per room. At vacation rental properties too, families might find mixed messages. Airbnb's nondiscrimination policy forbids U.S. hosts from banning children or "charging for fees for guests of a certain age." But Airbnb hosts often describe their properties as "unsuitable" for children under 12. Read more: 11 staycation ideas around SoCal, from the Idyllwild forest to picturesque Santa Barbara At the Alila Marea Beach Resort in Encinitas, which recently banned children, general manager Richard Sorensen did not respond to a request for comment. The Alila chain, a high-end international sub-brand of Hyatt, also includes hotels in Big Sur ("an adult-only experience reserved for those 18 years of age and over") and Napa Valley (where a reservationist said families are theoretically allowed, but all rooms and suites are limited to two occupants). Meanwhile, some consumers have taken to social media to talk about how children can ruin a hotel experience. A Reddit user going by WowOwlO opined in a thread on the topic that "children are just loud, messy, and simply don't belong at a five star hotel. We should be able to have establishments that separate them." Beyond California, many destinations allow hotels to bar children. The Sandals resorts, all located in the Caribbean outside the U.S., have made the absence of children a key part of their identity. "There's definitely a demand for child-free spaces, especially when we're talking about honeymoons and things like that," said D.C. Vekic, president of Cosmopolitan Travels in Northridge. Sign up for The Wild newsletter to get weekly insider tips on the best of our beaches, trails, parks, deserts, forests and mountains. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
18-03-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Adults-only hotels are all over California. Are they even legal?
Can hotels legally ban children? With spring breaks starting momentarily and summer vacations not far away, the question is puzzling a wide scope of California travelers — parents booking their next family vacation as well as adults looking for a child-free escape. And the answer is complicated. The issue flared in February when the Alila Marea Beach Resort in Encinitas, part of the Hyatt hotel empire, announced it would exclude children as overnight guests, thus becoming the self-described 'only adults-only oceanfront resort in Southern California.' This move at a high-profile beachfront property sparked a debate about state law and hotels' obligations and has turned eyes on other California hotels that exclude children. In the Palm Springs area, the Colony Palms, the Fleur Noire, the Ingleside Estate and La Maison Palm Springs are among the lodgings whose websites say they are adults-only. The Whisky Hotel, which opened March 12 in Hollywood, promotes itself similarly. 'We cater to adults only, because that's kind of our vision,' said Whisky Hotel general manager Alan Esparza, noting the grown-up atmosphere in the hotel's Hollywood neighborhood. Still, in a pinch, Esparza said, 'We make exceptions.' The focus of the conversation is Section 51 of the state's Civil Code, widely known as the Unruh Act, which is designed to prevent discrimination by race, religion, sexual orientation and 10 other 'protected characteristics.' Attorneys, industry veterans and consumer advocates have cited this act when asserting that banning children from hotels is illegal. However, Section 51 doesn't specify age as a protected attribute, and state officials do permit rental car companies to refuse rentals to drivers under 25. But California courts have decided that the Unruh Act prohibits landlords from refusing to rent to families with children. Asked if it's legal for a California hotel to ban children, a representative from the state Civil Rights Department said via email that 'the law's application with respect to age discrimination depends on the specific facts and circumstances.' The state Attorney General's press office was equally vague, saying, 'We are unable to provide legal advice or analysis.' Neither agency cited legal precedents or earlier cases. Until state officials provide more clarity, industry veterans and consumer advocates suggested, families should take care to make sure of a hotel's policy before booking. That might mean talking to a reservations agent before making a reservation online. 'I think it's really problematic legally' to ban children. 'I'm not sure why it hasn't been challenged before,' said Jamie Court, president of Los Angeles-based A hotel 'is a place of public accommodation and you're discriminating based on family status.' In Court's view, 'Someone can sue. But it should be the attorney general who is going to court if the hotels don't back down after a warning. And it should be the attorney general writing warning letters. ... I don't know why the A.G. and the state have become so timid.' In a 2023 handout to its members, the California Hotel & Lodging Assn. warned hoteliers that the Unruh Act 'prohibits hotels from discriminating against minors based on age,' adding, 'Some lodging operators assume that because some young children or other minors might engage in improper conduct, the hotel has a right to refuse accommodations. This is a dangerous misconception.' Even when minors are unaccompanied, the association wrote, 'It is unlawful to have a blanket policy' prohibiting them. However, the association said, a hotel 'can refuse to accommodate individual children and their parents' if there is 'just cause.' The association's spokesman declined to comment on any specific cases. Another industry veteran surprised by the situation is Laurie E. Sherwood, a partner at the Irvine-based law firm Walsworth, who has handled travel-related cases for close to 30 years. 'My initial, gut-level reaction is that hotels are places of public accommodation,' Sherwood said, and that 'it's a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act because you're excluding families with children.' Many California hotels have finessed the issue by restricting children's access without banning them. Some hotels, like the River Lodge Paso Robles, officially welcome children but ban anyone under 21 from the pool and hot tub. Other hotels, such as the elite Post Ranch Inn in Big Sur, limit occupancy to two people per room. At vacation rental properties too, families might find mixed messages. Airbnb's nondiscrimination policy forbids U.S. hosts from banning children or 'charging for fees for guests of a certain age.' But Airbnb hosts often describe their properties as 'unsuitable' for children under 12. At the Alila Marea Beach Resort in Encinitas, which recently banned children, general manager Richard Sorensen did not respond to a request for comment. The Alila chain, a high-end international sub-brand of Hyatt, also includes hotels in Big Sur ('an adult-only experience reserved for those 18 years of age and over') and Napa Valley (where a reservationist said families are theoretically allowed, but all rooms and suites are limited to two occupants). Meanwhile, some consumers have taken to social media to talk about how children can ruin a hotel experience. A Reddit user going by WowOwlO opined in a thread on the topic that 'children are just loud, messy, and simply don't belong at a five star hotel. We should be able to have establishments that separate them.' Beyond California, many destinations allow hotels to bar children. The Sandals resorts, all located in the Caribbean outside the U.S., have made the absence of children a key part of their identity. 'There's definitely a demand for child-free spaces, especially when we're talking about honeymoons and things like that,' said D.C. Vekic, president of Cosmopolitan Travels in Northridge.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Lawsuit alleges Disneyland excluded physically disabled visitors from using Disability Access Service
LOS ANGELES (KTLA) – A class-action lawsuit is challenging Disneyland's Disability Access Service (DAS), alleging that the resort disproportionately excluded guests with physical disabilities from using the service. Disneyland's DAS program allows eligible guests to skip attraction lines. It does not provide immediate access to attractions; guests must book a return time. The suit, filed on Monday in Orange County Superior Court, focuses on the changes Disneyland made to its DAS program last summer to curb the misuse riddled in the widely used program. According to Disney officials, before the changes, DAS usage tripled over the past five years, The new guidelines aim to limit the DAS program primarily to guests with developmental disabilities, such as autism and other neurodivergent conditions. Guests must also complete in-person conversations to determine eligibility for the program. The lawsuit asks a judge to require Disney to modify its DAS policies to include all people with disabilities. It seeks statutory damages of no less than $4,000 per violation and attorneys' fees. Disneyland guests still frustrated with updated Disability Access Service program 'Disney's screening process effectively excluded and tended to screen out individuals with physical disabilities whose conditions also prevented them from tolerating long waits. By focusing exclusively on developmental disabilities, such as autism, Disney's criteria unlawfully denied accommodations to physically disabled guests, perpetuating systemic barriers to equal access in violation of the Unruh Act and its incorporation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),' the lawsuit alleges. The class action suit is against Walt Disney Parks, which owns and operates the Anaheim theme park resort, and Inspire Health Alliance, a California-based healthcare provider 'contracted by Disney to conduct medical screenings and assess the eligibility of guests seeking DAS accommodations.' The suit was filed by McCune Law Group on behalf of Trisha Malone, a San Diego resident, who is physically disabled and denied DAS accommodations. In a statement to KTLA, Disneyland officials said claims made in the complaint are without merit. 'Disney is committed to providing a great experience for all who visit our theme parks, particularly our guests with disabilities who may require special accommodations,' Disney officials said in a statement. 'Disney offers a broad range of effective disability accommodations and has worked extensively with experts to ensure that our guests' individual needs are properly matched with the accommodation they require, and we believe the claims in this complaint are without merit.' According to the park's website, DAS isn't the only option for guests with disabilities to enjoy the theme park. Other accessibility options include a sensory experience guide, sign language interpreters, wheelchair and scooter rentals, and video-closed captioning on some rides. Guests with disabilities can also exit and re-enter an attraction queue as needed and rejoin their party before they board the ride or utilize the ride switch option. Disney officials also said that only some visitors require DAS, while other guests with disabilities can be accommodated with their other services. This isn't the first time guests have complained about the park's updated DAS policy. Last April, a group representing guests with disabilities, known as DAS Defenders, wrote a letter to Walt Disney Co. executives, including CEO Bob Iger, and started a petition urging the company to reverse recent updates to the program. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Guardian
05-02-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
California warns hospitals not to withhold trans youth healthcare
As Donald Trump seeks to block transgender youth healthcare across the country, California's attorney general has sent a clear message to providers, reminding them of their duty to provide gender-affirming treatment under the state's nondiscrimination laws. 'The law requires [hospitals] to continue to provide gender-affirming care to our transgender community,' Rob Bonta, a Democrat who heads the California justice department, told the Guardian on Wednesday. 'We will have the transgender community's back. We will fight for their rights, for their protections, for their freedoms.' His comments come a week after Trump issued an executive order decreeing that medical institutions that receive federal funding and grants do not provide gender-affirming care, including hormone therapy and puberty blockers, to youth under age 19. In response, some hospitals have paused treatments, which are considered part of the standards of care for gender dysphoria endorsed by all major US medical associations. Trans patients, their families and civil rights groups have said the interruption of care could have dire consequences for patients' physical and mental also argued that Trump's order is unlawful, violating patients' constitutional rights and parental rights, and that hospitals have no legal obligation to preemptively deny care, particularly while the policy is being challenged in court. More than half of US states have already passed laws in recent years restricting gender-affirming healthcare for youth, but Trump's order has led institutions in progressive states, including New York and California, to cancel care. On Tuesday, Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), a major local provider, said it was pausing the initiation of hormone treatments for trans youth. The hospital told the LA Times it was not starting new patients' gender-affirming care while it evaluated Trump's order 'to fully understand its implications', but said treatment for existing patients would continue. On Wednesday, Bonta wrote a letter to CHLA warning that 'withholding services from transgender individuals based on their gender identity or their diagnosis of gender dysphoria' would violate the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act, a longstanding law that prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ+ people. CHLA did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. An official told the LA Times it was continuing hormone therapy and puberty blockers for cisgender youth prescribed the treatments for other medical needs – a move Bonta said illustrates how the institution was discriminating against trans patients. Some cisgender youth with delayed puberty, for example, are prescribed hormones. 'The Unruh Act does not allow you to provide care to cisgender patients while withholding it from transgender patients,' Bonta said in the interview. If providers such as CHLA continue to deny care, his office could take legal action, seeking a court injunction that compels institutions to comply with the state's civil rights laws, he said, noting violations can lead to monetary penalties. The state previously sued a gym that barred a trans woman from the women's locker room under the Unruh Act, and in 2021, she won damages. Withholding gender-affirming care could also violate nondiscrimination protections in the federal Affordable Care Act, he said. Bonta's letter further noted that he and 22 other attorneys general sued to block Trump's order, and that a court ruling has temporarily blocked federal agencies from taking any action to withhold funding from institutions that provide gender-affirming care. New York's attorney general, Letitia James, also sent a warning to hospitals earlier this week that the law compels them to provide fender-affirming care. Institutions and providers who offer gender-affirming treatment and abortion care have been facing immense pressure and scrutiny as Trump and Republican leaders across the country seek to erode their rights. Bonta said California would continue to defend doctors in the face of threats: 'We will do everything in our power to use the full force of the law and the full authority of the office to make sure that both providers of gender-affirming care and patients are protected.' Bonta spoke to the Guardian shortly after Trump announced an executive order seeking to ban trans female athletes from women's sports and directing state attorneys general to identify enforcement best practices. 'I'm disappointed, but there's no surprise. We're ready,' Bonta said of the sports order. He said he would be assessing the impact on the state and what actions could be taken to challenge it, but added that revoking trans athletes' rights at the federal level would not undo California nondiscrimination regulations: 'State laws protecting trans athletes will remain.' Trump's efforts to erode trans youth care – part of a series of broad attacks on LGBTQ+ rights in his first weeks in office – have already had far-reaching consequences for families, advocates said. Trans youth and their parents, represented by the ACLU and Lambda Legal, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday challenging Trump's order, outlining how the abrupt interruption of care had devastated youth who depend on the treatment. Kristen Chapman, a plaintiff and mother of a 17-year-old trans girl, had moved to Virginia to help her daughter access care after Republican lawmakers in her home state of Tennessee outlawed youth gender-affirming treatment. After a long struggle to schedule an appointment, her daughter was due to be seen on 29 January. But hours before, the hospital canceled, due to Trump's order signed the day prior, she said in a statement: 'I thought Virginia would be a safe place for me and my daughter. Instead, I am heartbroken, tired, and scared.' Bonta said defending trans youth remained a top priority. He said: 'When you see children being harmed, being attacked by federal action, the stakes are high. This is targeting certain communities based on who they are and their ability to live their own authentic lives … This is about their rights and freedoms to seek healthcare based on who they are. These are fundamental protections. That's why we're acting urgently and aggressively.'
