In June, Manhattan attorney Roy Den Hollander filed a federal lawsuit against a variety of New York nightclubs arguing that "Ladies' Nights" violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (New Yorker). This case is the latest in a string of lawsuits raising the question of whether businesses should be able to charge gender-specific admission or prices. Is it paternalistic or anti-capitalistic to set legal guidelines dictating identical prices for the genders, especially when there is unequal demand for certain services? Gelf checks the precedents to see if sex-based rates are Kool and the Gang.
1981
A man sued the Seattle Supersonics basketball team after having to pay full-price for a ticket on a special "Ladies' Night" while his wife paid half as much. In MacLean v. First Northwest Industries of America, the Washington Supreme Court found the promotion reasonable, saying that because women "do not manifest the same interest in basketball as men do," the purpose of the cost-difference was "not to exclude anyone but to encourage attendance."
1995
The California legislature signed a law to ban gender-based pricing of services, becoming the first state in the country to do so. Since then, similar legislation has also been passed in Florida's Miami-Dade County, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts (Christian Science Monitor).
1998
The New York City Council approved an ordinance prohibiting hair salons and dry cleaners from charging men and women different prices. The decision was largely influenced by a 1996 survey that found that, on average, women paid 14 percent more for dry cleaning and 40 percent more for haircuts.
March 2005
The issue extends to Canada, where Liberal parliament member Lorenzo Berardinetti introduced a bill in the Ontario legislature that would prohibit businesses from charging different prices for services based on gender (CTV). "It's odd to think that in 2005, discrimination of this type still exists in Canada," Berardinetti said, "[that] more than half the population
is discriminated against in several different areas."
May 2005
The New York City Council approved the "Women's Restroom Equity Bill" which required public facilities to have twice as many women's toilets as men's toilets. This bill replaced a 1984 law upholding a one-to-one ratio. "It's a women's rights accomplishment," said council member Yvette D. Clarke (D), the bill's chief sponsor, told the Washington Post. "It goes to the quality of life that we are able to enjoy in the city." States like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington have passed similar "restroom equity" laws.
Comment Rules
The following HTML is allowed in comments:
Bold: <b>Text</b>
Italic: <i>Text</i>
Link:
<a href="URL">Text</a>