Board of Directors of Rotary International v Rotary Club of Duarte Brief of Amici Curiae

    In The Supreme Court 
of the

United States

October Term, 1986

Board of Directors of Rotary International
et al.,

Appellants
v .

Rotary Club of Duarte, et al., 
Appellees

Appeal from the Court of Appeal 
of the State of California, 
Second Appellate District

Brief Of Amici Curiae,
American Jewish Committee; California Women Lawyers; Coalition of 
Labor Union Women; Connecticut Women• s _Educational & Legal E^nd, 
Equal Rights Advocates; National Organization for Women, National 
Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund;
Northwest Women’s Law Center; San Francisco Women Lawyers 
Alliance; Women Lawyers’ Association of Los Angeles; Women s 
Action Alliance, Inc; Women’s Bar Association of the State of New 
York* Women's Equity Action League; Women’s Law Project; Women 
Legal Defense Fund; Women Employed; Women In Business In Support 
Of Appellees.



I .

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF 
AMICI CURIAE

Amici are national and state organizations, open to women and 
men, committed to achieving equal opportunity for women and 
minorities in the business, professional and civic life of our 
country. Amici's individual statements of interest appear in 
Appendix A. Amici's members are personally aware of the high 
level of business activity at many of the country's purportedly 
"private" clubs and organizatiions, such as Rotary International, 
and of the lost business opportunities to themselves and to 
others when', and minorities are barred from membership at these 
business oriented clubs. Because of its direct impact on women s 
and minorities' full access to clubs and organizations which are 
centers of business and decision making activity, amici have clo­
sely followed the progress of the case at bar and are __________
concurrent with its outcome.

II.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Amici adopt the Statement of the Case set forth by 
Appellee, Rotary Club of Duarte.

-2-



III.SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
[LYNN]

IV.
ARGUMENT

A. Introduction

In recent years, the impact on women and minorities of 
exclusion from clubs and organizations that hold themselves out 
as private, but are in fact centers of business activity has 
received wide attention.-/ Such exclusion deprives women of 
equal economic opportunity, subjects women to personal hum^iation 
and, by barring women from informal centers of power, confirms in 
men the belief that women are inappropriate participants where 
formal power is exercised. An understanding that such exclusion 
is neither unimportant nor benign and that there is indeed exten­
sive business activity at so-called "private" clubs and organiza­
tions is implicit in the resolutions, executive orders and 
personnel policies recently promulgated by numerous organiza-

*Although in many cases the focus of this brief is the impact 
of exclusion from business oriented facilities, on women, amci 
are equally committed to ensuring that minority groups enjoy full 
acass to those important business centers.

1/ See, e.g., Burns The Exclusion of Women from Influential 
Mon’c' rinhq- The Inner Sanctum and the Myth of Full Equalityr 18 
S;;,.S £p-ST% o T  Srhafran. L.H., WELCOME TO THE C L U B / (No
Women Need Apply), Women and Foundations/Corporate Philanthropy, 

The All-Male Club: Threatened On All Sides, Business 
Week August 11. 1Qfln, qn? Bracewell. Sanctuaries of Power* 
HoustoS C U y  Magazine; May 1980, at 50; Behind Closed Doors: 
Discrimination by Private Clubs: A ^report Based on City 
Commission on Human Rights Hearings New York City Commission on 
Hvmia" n <>751 ■ Ginsburg. Women as Full Members of the Club
An Evolving American Ideal, 6 Hum. Rts. 1 (1975).

-3-



tions, government officials, corporations and academic institutions
barring the conduct of official business at discriminatory clubs
and other facilities. For example, the American Bar Association,
the State Bar of California and New York, the National
Association of Women Judges, the Association of the Bar of the
City of New York, the Bar Association of San Francisco, New York
County Lawyer's Association, the New York State Bar Association,
American Jewish Congress, and the Council on Foundations prohibit
their committees, sections and staffs from holding meetings and

2/other official functions at clubs that discriminate.— Mayor
Edward I. Koch and Governor Mario Cuomo have issued Executive
Orders barring the conduct of official New York City and New York

3 /State business at such facilities.— The New York Court of
Appeals amended the Rules of The Chief Judge to include a similar

4/prohibition for the Unified Court System.—
Among corporations, ARCO, Michigan Consolidated Gas 

Company, CBS, IBM, The New York Times and Bank of America no

2/ "The Use of Private Clubs for Association Functions," 
American Bar Association, adopted October 1978; "Policy on Situs of 
Association Council Meetings and Situs of Meetings of Association 
Officers and Stafaf", The Association of the Bar of the City of New 
York, adopted April 9, 1981; Resolution of the New York County Bar 
Association respecting use of discriminatory clubs adopted April 14, 
1986; New York State Bar Association, Resolution adopted January 23, 
1981; "Discrimination at Private Clubs, Hotels, etc.", American 
Jewish Congress, adopted June 6, 1982; "Council Policy on the Use of 
Private Clubs", Council on Foundations, adopted October 19, 1981.

3/ Executive Order No. 69. Mayor Edward I. Koch,
September 28, 1983; "Prohibition of the Conduct of City Business at 
Private Clubs That Engage in Discriminatory Membership Practices"; 
Executive Order No. 17, Governor Mario M. Cuomo, May 31, 1983, 
"Establishing State Policy on Private Institutions Which 
Discriminate".

£/ Rules of the Chief Judge, 22 NYCRR 20.21, adopted 
November 24, 1980.

-4-



V. . 5/

* • s '  ' " \  -

longer pay for their efforts to be membets of such clubs or reim-
burse business expenses incurred there.—

Columbia University and the University of Minnesota are among
academic institutions which expressly bar the conduct of univer-

6 /sity business or activities at discriminatory facilities.—
Many of the clubs that have been the targets of these 

actions have responded to these external pressures and to the 
urgings of their own members by opening their doors to women. In 
1986 alone the University Clubs of Pasadena, California and 
Providence, Rhode Island, Philadelphia's Union League and the

7 /Detroit Athletic Club were among those voting to admit women.— 
The Duarte Rotary Club, too, seeks to acknowledge the 

reality of its club's purposes and practices by admitting women 
who meet Rotary's membership criteria as business and pro­
fessional however, resists this change, pretending that it is

5/ Memorandum from Lowdrick M. Cook, Chairman and Chief 
Executive Officer of ARCO to ARCO senior management, May 28, 1986; 2 
Utilities Halt Dues for Detroit Men's Club, New York Times,
February 12, 1986 at 10, Col 5; CBS Policy, Delegations of 
Authority, Reimbursable Business Expenses, Paragraph 16, Adopted 
January 31, 1981; IBM "Position of Non-Support for Organizations or 
Service Clubs Which Exclude Persons on the Basis of Race, Color,
Sex, Religion or Natural Origin," Adopted 1980; Century Club's 
Timesmen S^uck With the Tab, New York Post, December 12, 1983, at 6, 
col.l; Bank of America 1980 Expense Account Guidelines.

6/ "Resolution Concerning University Participation in Clubs 
with Discriminatory Admissions Policies", Columbia University 
adopted January 23, 1981; Memorandum of President C. Peter 
McGrath, June 1984, University of Minnesota.

7/ All Male Club of 60 Years Finally Relents, Los Angeles 
Times, June 19, 1986 at 1; Club in Rhode Island to let Women Join, 
New York Times, June 8, 1986 at 61, col. 1; Philadelphia Club Drops 
All-Male Restriction, New York Times, May 22, 1986 at A.20; Clubs 
End Bar to Women, New York Times, December 31, 1986 at D16, col.2.

-5-



solely an organization of intimates providing service to the 
public, that it has no business purpose, provides no business 
related goods or services, and confers no economic advantage on 
its members. Rotary's Manual of Procedure and the affidavits 
offered in this and other Rotary cases tell a different story —  
the story of an immense international organization avid for 
publicity and growth, whose members are chosen strictly for their 
standing in the business community and are provided with both the 
training andd access to an array of local, national and worldwide 
business leaders to enhance that standing in the business com­
munity.

Despite Rotary's protestations, the business advantage con­
ferred by membership in the organization is undeniable, and the cost 
to business and professional women excluded from its ranks severe. 
The substantial business activities engaged in by Rotary make appli­
cation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act to Rotary a constitutionally 
valid effort on the part of California to remove discriminatory 
barriers to women's full participation in the business, pro­
fessional, civic and political life of the community.

B. The Application Of The Unruh Act To Rotary
International Narrowly Serves The "Profoundly 
Important" State Interest Of Ensuring Nondis- 
criminatory Access To Commercial Opportunities.
This case requires the court, as it did in Roberts v.

United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, _____  (1984) to "address a
conflict between a State's efforts to eliminate gender-based
discrimination against its citizens and the constitutional
freedom of association asserted by members of a private
organization." California has long sought to eliminate

-6-



discrimination against its citizens on the basis of "sex, race,
color, religion, ancestry, or national origin" by, inter alia,
enactment of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code
§ 51 ("Unruh Act"). In this case, the right which California
seeks to protect is the access of women to economic opportunity.
This court faced a similar effort by the State of Minnesota to
protect women's access to economic advantage in Roberts, supra,
in which this court noted:

"Like many States and municipalities,
Minnesota has adopted a functional definition 
of public accommodations that reaches various 
forms of public, quasi-commercial conduct.
This expansive definition reflects a recogni­
tion of the changing nature of the American 
economy and the importance, both to the indi­
vidual and to society, of removing the 
barriers to economic advancement and political 
and social integration that have historically 
plagued certain disadvantaged groups, 
including women. . . . Assuring women equal 
access to such goods, privileges, and advan­
tages clearly furthers compelling state 
interests."

Roberts, supra, 468 U.S. at ____, 104 S.Ct. at 3254 (citations
omitted). California, too, seeks to further the compelling state 
interest of assuring women and minorities equal access to econo­
mic advantages available in private clubs and organizations which 
are engaged in substantial business activity.

California, has a long history of trying to eliminate 
discrimination in all forms of business establishments, public or 
private, to ensure its citizens nondiscriminatory access to busi­
ness opportunity.

-7-



1 . The Unruh Act Was Enacted To Permit California's 
Citizens Nondiscriminatory Acces to Public 
Facilities and Economic Advantages.

Civil Code § 51 currently states in pertinent part:

"All persons within the jurisdiction 
of this State are free and equal, and no 
matter what their sex, race, color, reli­
gion, ancestry, or national origin are 
entitled to the full and equal accom­
modations, advantages, facilities, privi­
leges, or services in all business 
establishments of every kind whatsoever."

The Act has been progressively expanded over the years to cover
more entities as it has become clear that the full access of
California's citizens to goods, services and economic advantages
in a nondiscriminatory manner required such expansion.

The California Court of Appeal reviewed the history of
the Unruh Act in Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of Boy Scouts,
147 Cal.App.3d 712, 726-27, 195 Cal.Rptr. 325, 333-34 (1983):

"Under California's early common 
law, enterprises which were affected with 
a public interest had a duty to provide 
sejrvice^ to all without discrimination.
In 1987, statutory recognition was given 
to thirs common law doctrine by the enact­
ment of the predecessor of the present 
Unruh Act. . . . "

"From 1897 until 1959, when Unruh 
was enacted, the language of the public 
accommodation statute was amended on 
several occasions, with the Legislature 
listing additional specific |>lac es of 
public accommodation but always including 
the general category of 'all other places 
of public accommodation or amusement.' 
Despite the broad language forbidding 
discrimination by 'all other places of 
public accommodation,' certain decisions 
of appellate courts made in the late 
1950's reveal a judicial effort to

-8-



'improperly' curtail 'the scope of the 
public accommodation provisions' by 
narrowly defining the kinds of business 
that afforded public accommodation. . . .

"Out of a concern for, and in 
response to, these decisions restricting 
the scope of the public accommodations 
provisions, the Legislature in 1959 
enacted the Unruh Act . . . "

(Citations and footnotes omitted.)
The Unruh Act has been applied to forbid discrimina­

tion by physicians (Washington v. Blampin, 226 Cal.App.2ds 604,
48 Cal.Rptr. 235 (1964)), real estate brokers (Lee v. O'Hara, 58 
Cal.2d 476, 370 P.2d 321, 20 Cal.Rptr. 617 (1962)), a condominium 
homeowner's association (O'Connor v. Village Green Owners' Ass'n, 
33 Cal.3d 709, 662 P12d 427, 191 Cal.Rptr. 320 (1983)) and a 
nonprofit organization providing services to boys only (Curran v. 
Mount Diablo, supra.).

2. Discriminatory Membership Policies Have a 
Crippling Effect on the Professional 
Advancement of Women and Minorities

The Unruh Act protects California citizens from a number
of serious social and economic hardships. In this case, at issue 
is harm to women and minorities in being excluded from organiza­
tions which foster business opportunities and education for their 
members.

It has been well documented that a private club can 
afford its membetrs unique opportunities for personal contacts 
and business deals. Foundations, major corporations, and presti­
gious law firms all recognize that private clubs enable their
employees to spend time with :lients in a relaxed, informal

-9-



setting, establishing credibility on a personal and professional 
level, and become part of the "who knows whom" net work so criti­
cal to professional success. A study sponsored by the American 
Jewish Committee revealed that 50.5% of corporate executives 
interviewed believed clubs provided valuable business contacts. 
Sixty-seven and nine-tenth's percent (67.9%) reported that the 
membership adds to one's status in his firm or community. Burns, 
The Exclusion of Women from Influential Men's Clubs; The Inner 
Sanctum and The Myth of Full Equality, 18 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L.Rev. 
321, 328 n.20 (1983), quoting R. Powell, The Social Milieu as 
a Force of Executive Promotion 105 (1969). As the New York City 
Commission on Human Rights concluded after holding hearings on 
business-oriented private clubs:

"Irrespective of the reasons, major 
companies, banks, law firms and 
trade professional associations 
routinely use club facilities rather 
than public accommodations for 
meetings of all kinds, informal and 
formal. . . [W]itnesses testified 
from personal experience that clubs 
are the preferred setting for sche­
duled group meetings ranging from 
the inner circle of a particular 
firm, to the leaders of an industry, 
profession or governmental agency, 
to special events at which prominent 
persons address a select audience on 
matters of special or general 
current interest."

E. Lynton, Behind Closed Doors: Discrimination by Private Clubs,
A Report Based on City Commission on Human Rights Hearing 15 
(1975); see also Club Membership Practices of Financial 
Institutions: Hearings Before the Senate Committee on Banking,

-10-



Housing, and Urban Affairs, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979).
These clubs enable their members to affiliate with a

network of upwardly mobile peers and gain access to the business 
and civic leaders of the community. In essence, they provided 
members with an entree to the "Old Boy Network." The Old Boy 
Network is that series of linkages with influential elders and 
am/bitious peers which men develop as they move through school, 
work, professional organizations, and private clubs. It provides 
men with knowledgeable allies who help them advance in their 
careers, teach them the cast of characters, and alert them to job 
openings, business opportunities, and financial grants. The kind 
of access Rotary provides is evidenced by an article in a recent 
issue of The Rotarian, in which the author begins by describing 
the experience of a young man newly inducted into Rotary: "At
first he was awed to be fraternizing and breaking bread with 
community leaders who were his senior by many years, but they 
encouraged him to call them by their first names.' Uhlig, Do 
Women Belong in Rotary? No, 150 The Rotarian No. 1, p. 15 
(January 1987).

overestimated. The Detroit Free Press has described the Old Boy

men a chance to push the right buttons and meet the right people 
at the right time." O'Brien, Women Helping Women, Det. Free 
Press, Nov. 13, 1978. Promotions and high-level jobs are often 
based on the personal relationships forged in the old Boy 
Network. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that almost one 
third of all jobs men hold come through personal contacts. U.S.

The importance of access to such networks cannot be

the power really is...the mechanism that gives

-11-



Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bull. No. 1886, Job Seeking Methods 
Used by American Workers, Table 3 1972). Most people believe the 
percentage is even higher for hihg-level jobs. C. Kleiman, 
Women's Networks 2 (1980).

Women need the access to career^enhancing networks as 
much as, if not more than, men. Numerous studies conducted over 
the past fifteen years have revealed a convergence in men's and 
women's career and family goals. See, e.g . , Johnson, For 
Students a Dramatic Shift in "Goals", N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1983, 
at B5, col. 2; Devanna, Male/Female Careers, The First Decade, 
Columbia University Graduate School of Business, Center for 
Research in Career Development (1984). In one study of male and 
female managers in two unnamed companies, researchers found that 
women and men both had high power and achievement drives and 
strong motivation to manage. Harlan & Weiss, Moving Up: Women
in Managerial Careers, Final Report, Wellesley College Center for 
Research on Women (1981).

Yet women have not attained the same professional status 
as their male colleagues. Although women fill nearly one-third 
of all management positions, most are stuck in jobs with little 
authority and relatively low pay. Hymowitz & Schellhardt, The 
Glass Ceiling, Wall St. J., March 24, 1986, at ID, col. 1. Only 
two percent of top executives surveyed in 1985 are women. Just 
one woman- —  Katherine Graham of Washington Post Co. —  heads a 
Fortune 500 company. Id. col. 2. A recent survey of 1,362 senior 
executives in positions just under chief executive rank at the
nation's largest companiies tuurned up only 29 women. Why Women

-12-



<1Executives Stop Before The top, Newsweek, Dec. 29, 1986 
January 5, 1987 at 72. Moreover, women hold only three to four 
percent of Fortune 1000 directorships, despite their majority 
place in the work force. Ansberry, Board Games, Wall St. J., 
March 24, 1985, at 4D, col. 1.

Aspiration and drive simply are not enough for women 
seeking to equal the professional accomplishments of their male 
counterparts. "[W]ho knows whom...is important [in carrer 
advancement]. In this regard, women suffer because men tend to 
socialize in activities which exclude women." Bartlette,
Poulton-Callahan, Somers, What's Holding Women Back, Management 
Weekly, Nov. 8, 1982; see also Hollingsworth, Sex Discrimination 
in Private Clubs, 29 Hastings L.J. 417, 421 (1977) ("The exclu­
sion of a segment of the population from such private clubs works 
to severely limit the economic mobility of that segment."); and 
Bell, Power Networking, Black Enterprise 111 (Feb. 1986) ("[T]o 
to be truly successful, you have to become a part of the inter­
nal, often invisible, old boy network, too."). Women need the 
informal contacts, networking, and professional support mem­
bership in private clubs, such as Rotary International, offer.

These clubs often argue that they are not commercial 
establishments but instead purelyh social organizations in which 
their members should enjoy freedom of association. In fact, most 
private clubs serve to promote business activity of every con­
ceivable kind. In a recent interview, the Presidsent of the Bar 
Assjociatino of San Francisco stated that important legal bus­
iness, that is both commercial and professional is transacted at

-13-



private clubs. 'Male' Clubs: Bar Leaders are Members, The
Recorders, July 22, 1986. Phillip Johnson, one of the country's 
leading architects, periodically convenes "architectural lumi­
naries" for "stag dinners at the Century Association." The Trend 
Setting Traditionalism of Architect Robert A. M. Stern, N.Y.
Times Magazine, Jan. 14, 1985, at 41, 47. New York City's 
Century Club would have been the site of the American Book Awards 
Dinner had not objections to use of a sex-discriminatory facility 
caused its relocation to the New York Public Library. Three 
Writers Win Book Awards, N.Y. Times, Nov. 16, 1984, at C32, col. 
1. The Union League, another New York institution which refuses 
membership to women, was the site chosen by the Hyatt Corporation 
Chairman for a meeting with Braniff airline creditors to discuss 
a takeover proposal. Improved Braniff Aid Plan Reported, N.Y. 
Times, April 1983, at 29, col. 1.

Rotary International is no different. It cannot 
distinguish itself merely by professing that it performs solely 
eleomosynary functions. Volume 1 of the Rotary Basic Library 
confirms that the primary purpose behind the formation of the 
Rotary movement was commercial advantage. "The earliest meetings 
of the 'Rotarians' were held in the name of 'acquaintance' and 
good fellowship, and they were designed to produce increased 
business for each member." (Rotary Basic Library, Vocational 
Service, vol. 3, at 6-7). Even today, as Rotary International 
admitted in its Jurisdsictional Statement, 'membership in Rotary 
is restricted to business and professinoal men..."
(Jurisdictional Statement at 3.) In the proceedings below, Jacob 
Frankel, president of California State College, testified that

-14-



Rotary membership was essential for a college president to raise 
funds. All members of his cabinet were encouraged to join Rotary 
as part of their jobs. (R.T. 70.)

Besides the access to professional development which 
discriminatory business-related clubs deprive women, such discri­
minatory clubs have other negataive ramifications as well. They 
perpetuate the treatment of women and minorities as second class 
citizens. As two women law professors testsified before the 
United States Senate:

"The existence of such clubs today is 
evidence that there are still many who 
think that minorities are not fit persons 
with whom to associate. The exclusion 
of women from private clubs delivers a 
different but no less offensive message.
It, too, is a reminder that the legal, 
political, and economic role assigned to 
women throughout most of our history was 
a quite restricted one."

Barbara Allen Babcok and Herma Hill Kay, Statement Submitted to 
the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, June 23, 
1979, at 1-2. Such policies also deny women and minorities 
opportunities for professional growth and advancement. As the 
Presidsent of the San Francisco Bar Association stated when 
interviewed about such clubs; "The exclusion of women and minori­
ties operates as an impediment to their full participation in the 
legal profession." 'Male' Clubs: Bar Leaders are Membes, The
Recorder, July 22, 1984.

A further ramification of the discriminatory policcies, 
not to be overlooked, is their effect upon male members. Where

-15-



such exclusionary policies exist, men cannot entertain female or 
minority clients. Nor can they invite female colleagues to lunch 
or to participate in club activities. Another disadvantage is 
the humiliation a member would suffer if he inadvertently invited 
a woman or minority to attend a function only to discovery upon 
her arrival that she could not attend or must enter through a 
side door. Such episodes should not be discounted. Stories of 
their occurrence are legion. See, e .g . , Brick, Going Private;
Who is Welcome at the Club?, S.F. Attorney, Feb./March 1984, at
20.

Recognizing these various disadvantages, numerous states 
and municipalities recently have enacted legislation designed to 
prohibit discriminatory membership practices at private clubs*
Both Detroit and Philadelphia have adopted resolutions that would 
bar the city from awarding contracts to any company that pays for 
membership or expenses at such clubs. Nazario, Gentlemen of the 
Club, Wall St. J., March 24, 1986, at 19D, col. 1. New York City 
has amended its definition of a public accommodation to include 
any organization that has more than 400 members, regularly serves 
meals and regularly receives payments from or on behalf of non­
members in furtherance of trade or business. Kolbert, Many Country 
Clubs Still Male Bastions, N.Y. Times, July 19, 1986, at 52A, 
col. 2.

All of these resolutions folowed extensive hearings on 
the policies of private clubs and their discriminatory impact,
The conclusions of the states and cities which reviewed the 
matter were unanimous. All embodied "a recognition of the

-16-



changing nat are of the American economy and of the importance, 
both to the individual and to society, of removing the barriers 
to economic advancement and political and social integration that 
have historically plagued certain disadvantaged groups, 
including women." Roberts supra, 468 U.S. at 626.

The California legal profession has also recognized the 
growing problems that exclusionary membership policies present.
In 1986, both the Bar Association of San Francisco and the 
California State Bar Board of Governors adopted resolutions 
urging law firms and corporate legal departments to refrain from 
scheduling meetings or reimbursing dues or expenses at such 
clubs. California Lawyers Move on All-Male Clubs, N.Y. Times, 
Aug. 31,; 1986, at 35A, col. 1. In so doing, the Bar recognized, 
"continued adherence to those policies and practices imposes an 
unfair and arbitrary professional disadvantages on those members 
of the [Bar] Association who are subjected to discrimination, 
and...such discriminatory policies and practices are antithetical 
to the principles of justice for which this Association stands." 
San Francisco Bar Ass'n. Resolution, June 11, 1986.

The California Judges Association voted to amend its 
judicial code of ethics to state that it is "inappropriate" for 
members of the judiciary to belong to such clubs. Hager, Judges 
Vote to Avoid Discriminatory Clubs, L.A. Times, Sept. 16, 1986, 
at 1, col. 2. In like fashion, the Judicial Conference of the 
United States had amended the commentary to Cannon 2 of its code 
of Judicial Conduct in 1981 to provide that "it is inappropriate 
for a judge to hold a membership in any organization that

-17-



For the first time,practices invidious discrimination." 
however, the California amendment declined to leave it up to a 
judge's discretion whether the organizatioin he belonged to was 
guilty of "invidious discrimination." Id.

B. Application of the Unruh Act to Rotary International
Does Not Infringe Club Members' First Amendment Rights
California's Unruh Act serves to carry out 

what Justice O'Connor in her concurring opinion in Roberts, 
supra, termed "the power of the States to pursue the profoundly 
important goal of ensuring nondiscriminatory access to commercial
opportunities in our society." 468 U.S. ____. In contrast to
this compelling interest, it is clear that application of the 
Unruh Act to Rotary does not abridge either of the two components 
of the First Amendment right of association identified in 
Roberts.

1. Enforcement of the Unruh Act Does Not Abridge 
Club Members' Freedom of Intimate Association.

In Roberts this Court observed that the concept of 
freedom of intimate association is rooted in notions of personal 
liberty and affiliation particularly characteristic of families. 
The Court described the kinds of relationships which deserve 
freedom of intimate association protection as being 
"distinguished by such attributes as relative smallness, a high 
degree of selectivity in decisions to begin and maintain the 
affiliation, and seclusion from others in critical aspects of
the relationship". 468 U.S. at ____. The Court also noted that
in determining where a particular association lies on the 
spectrum between truly intimate relationships deserving First 
Amendment protection and those such as a large business

-18-



enterprise that do not, other factors may be relevant, including 
"purpose, policies...and other characteristics that in a par­
ticular case may be pertinent." 468 U.S. at ____.

Rotary argues that its clubs are selective in their mem­
bership, governed by their members, restrict participation to 
members, have fellowship in service as their prime purpose and 
are therefore entitled to protection of their freedom of intimate 
association. (App. Brief at ii). Examination of the true nature 
of Rotary International and its individual clubs as revealed in 
Rotary's Manual of Procedure and other sources demonstrates that 
because of Rotary's size, its intense concern with growth and 
publicity, the enforced "intimacy" of members of one club with 
hundreds of thousands of men worldwide, the participation of 
guests and the public in most Rotary events, the provision of 
business management training to members and, most important, the 
thoroughly commercial basis of its selection system, Rotary's 
members do not have any intimate association to protect.

(a) Selectivity. The crux of Rotary's argument is that 
it is distinguishable from Jaycees because, unlike that organiza­
tion, which accepted any man aged 18-35 with the ability to pay, 
Rotary has a "selective" membership policy. If all that is meant 
by "selective" is the dictionary definition of making a choice, 
Rotary does indeed have a "selective" membership policy. But to 
elevate the mere making of a choice to the embodiment of intimacy 
without inquiring into the basis for that choice is to elevate 
form over substance.

The repeatedly stated criteria for what makes a club 
private include not only that members be selected as opposed to

-19-



admitted wholesale, but that "membership is determined by subjec­
tive, not objective criteria." In the Matter of U.S. Power 
Squadrons, 465 N.Y.S.2d 871, 876 (Ct. App. 1983), Wright v. Cork 
Club, 315 F.Supp. 1143, 1153 (1970). Members of a truly private 
club are chosen for their personal attributes as human beings, 
not because of where they are employed.

Contrary to this standard of subjectivity, Rotary's 
"selectivity" is completely premised on objective business- 
related critera. Rotary's selection process utilizes a 
"classification of business or profession within the community." 
(App. Brief at 7). When a new member is proposed, the classifi­
cation committee ascertains "that there is an open classification 
of business or profession and that the prospective member's bus­
iness or profession is accurately described by the 
classification." (App. Brief at 8). The membership committee 
evaluates the candidate from the standpoint of character, busi­
ness and social standing." (App. Brief at 8, emphasis supplied). 
"An active member of a local Rotary Club must work in a 
leadership capacity (owner, partner, manager, ej: al.) in a 
business or profession in which he is classified." (App. Brief 
at 8.)

Roberts, speaks of selectivity in the decision to main­
tain the affiliation as well as to begin it. The Court of

8/ Requiring Rotary to admit women will not deprive it of
the right to choose members for their business/professional affi­
liations or their congeniality. The effect of applicaiton of the 
Unruh Act is only to bar exclusion on invidious discriminatory 
grounds not entitled to constitutional protection.

-20-



Appeals noted that according to the testimony of a former Rotary 
district governor, many Rotary clubs experience a ten percent 
turnover rate, and that in larger clubs the turnover rate is as 
high as twenty percent. (Slip. Op. at 22). Rotary's concern 
with disaffiliation is apparent in the Manual of Procedure which 
stresses ways of reducing membership losses. (Manual of Proc. at 
141) .

Beyond the fact that Rotary's selection system is 
thoroughly tainted by commercialism, which is enough to undermine 
its claim to a right of intimate association, examination of its 
size, use of publicity, lack of seclusion and business purpose 
make clear that Rotary does not meet the criteria which mark an 
organization as truly private.

(b) Size. In August 1982, Rotary had 907,750 members, 
making it three times the size of Jaycees. Appellant's 
repeatedly state that dividing this number by the 19,788 Rotary 
clubs then in existence gives an average club membership of 46. 
This average is even larger than the Jaycees, and some Rotary 
Clubs, like the Jaycees chapters that were parties in Roberts, 
have several hundred members. The Bakersfield, California Rotary 
Club, for example, has 200 members. (Slip. Op. p. 30). A club 
in the Seattle area has over 750 members. Rotary Club of Seattle 
- International District v. Rotary International (W.D. Wash.
No. C86-1475M) Hough Decl. 11 3, 4.

Moreover, members do not relate only to the members of 
their choosing in their own club, as one would expect in an inti­
mate relationship. Because Rotary requires members to attend 
meetings every week in whatever city they may find themselves

-21-



(Rotary Basic Library, Vol. 1 at 67-69), members are in 
"intimate" association not only with the members of their own 
clubs, but in varying degrees with the more than 900,000 
Rotarians worldwide.

Rotary further departs from the "relative smallness" 
required for intimate association protection by its assiduous 
pursuit of growth. Recruitment is as central to the operation of 
Rotary as it is to the Jaycees. In her concurring opinion in 
Roberts, Justice O'Connor cited the finding of the Minnesota 
District Court that the Jaycees "encourages continuous recruit­
ment of members with the expressed goal of increasing member­
ship..." 468 U.S. at _____ . Rotary's constitution and Manual
of Procedure document Rotary's commitment to this same goal.

The constitution states that the purposes of 
International are "[t]o encourage, promote, extend and supervise 
Rotary throughout the world." (Art. II of the International 
chapter entitled "Extension of Rotary" states that it is the 
"duty" of the board, all governors and all members of Rotary to 
do everything in their power constantly to open new clubs world­
wide and make clear that extension of Rotary is an absolute 
priority. (Manual of Proc. at 92-99). The chapter on 
"Membership in Rotary Clubs" gives explicit directions as to how 
each club's membership development committee should operate to 
recruit new members and maintain a constant "pattern of growth". 
(Manual of Proc. at 134-46). The "Public Relations" sections 
directs that each club is to have a public relations committee 
which is to use every possible method —  a detailed list is 
offered —  to keep Rotary's name before the public as a prime

-22-



means of "Attracting Men to Rotary Through Public Relations". 
(Manual of Proc. at 166-68). Rotary's success in achieving 
growth is evident from the fact that whereas membership stood at 
907,750 members in 19,788 clubs when this suit commenced in 
1982, today there are 1,021,624 members in 22,470 clubs. Vital 
Statistics, 150 The Rotarian, No. 1 at 1 (January 1987). This 
avid appetite for growth is incompatible with concepts of inti­
macy and seclusion.

(c) Publicity. Both In the Matter of U.S. Power 
Squadrons, supra, and Wright v. Cork Club, supra, held that among 
the criteria to be examined in determining whether an organiza­
tion is a private club is whether an organization's "publicity, 
if any, is directed solely and only to members for their infor­
mation and guidance." Id. at 1153. Similarly, Cornelius v. 
Benevolent Protective Order of Elks, 382 F.Supp. 1182 (D. Conn. 
1974) held that one of the factors in such a determination is 
whether the organization advertises. Ij3. at 1203.

Rotary's Manual of Procedure reveals a virtual obsession 
with directing publicity to the public and keeping Rotary 
constantly in the public eye. The Manual of Procedure directs 
clubs' public relations committees "to take a comprehensive 
approach to public relations", and "to utilize newspapers, radio, 
television, magazines and firms in telling the Rotary story" and 
"providing greater public relations impact". (Manual of Proc. at 
166-67).

Rotary's constant attention to publicity is another 
means by which it confers a business advantage on its members, 
who are regularly brought into the public eye with both their

-23-



Rotarian status and business classification identified. As with 
its appetite for growth, Rotary's appetite for publicity is 
antithetical to concepts of intimacy and seclusion.

(d) Seclusion. Rotary's claim that its clubs "have 
well defined policies restricting participation to members"
(App. Brief at ii) is belied by the Manual of Procedure. 
Individual members are urged to make "a special effort" to invite 
guests to weekly meetings "in order that non-Rotarian members of 
the community may be better informed about the function of the 
Rotary Club and its aim and objects." (Manual of Proc. at 35). 
Like Jaycees, Rotary conducts a wide range of community service 
projects in which members of the public of both sexes and other 
organizations participate. (Manual of Proc. at 42-48).
Non-Rotarians are invited to speak at business relations con­
ferences (Rotary International No. 540) and international conven­
tions (Manual of Proc. at 54). This Court could well have been 
speaking of Rotary when it wrote of the Jaycees in Roberts, 
"[N]umerous non-members of both genders regularly participate in 
a substantial portion of activities central to the decision of 
many members to associate with one another, including many of 
the organization's various community programs, awards ceremonies, 
and recruitment meetings." 468 U.S. at ____.

With respect to women's participation in Rotary, 
appellants' urge that, unlike Jaycees, Rotary has no women's 
affiliates and that to introduce women into Rotary would, there­
fore be a sharp break with tradition. Although women are not 
official affiliates of Rotary (Manual of Proc. at 68), the Manual 
of Procedure specifically commends the "fine work" peformed by

-24-



"ladies committees or other associations composed of women rela­
tives of Rotarians cooperating with and supporting them in ser­
vice and other Rotary club activities." (Manual of Proc. at 47).
A recent Rotarian article names these groups as the Rotary Anns, 
Inner Wheel and Las Damas de Rotary. Uhlig, Do Women Belong in 
Rotary? No, 150, The Rotarian, No. 1, p. 15, et seq. (January 
1987).

(e) Purpose. Appellants assert that in Rotary 
"fellowship in service to the public is of prime importance." 
(App. Br. at 18). Although Rotary does engage in a variety of 
community service projects, service to the public is only one of 
it purposes. Rotary's Basic Library states that Rotary's 
founder, Paul Harris, "had an idea that friendship and business 
could be mixed and that doing so would result in more business 
and more friendship for everyone involved" and quotes Harris as 
having written of the early Rotarians: "In the main their
efforts were directed to keeping each other in business, helping 
each other to attain success. They patronized each other when it 
was practical to do so, exerted helpful influence, and gave wise 
counsel when it was needed." (Rotary Basic Library, Vol. 3, 
Vocational Service, at 5, and 6-8).

Concern for members' business success continues to be a 
prime feature of Rotary activities. Rotary International No. 540 
describing Rotary run "Business Relations Conferences," states,

"One of the most satisfying vocational ser­
vice programs for the Rotarian is the busi­
ness relations conference. The Rotarian 
learns management techniques that help 
improve his own business or professional

-25-



skills. He receives the inspiration of 
discussing business problems with experts 
in his own or related fields."
The Manual of Procedure, under "Business Advice and 

Assistance to Rotarians", urges each club to establish committees 
to provide confidential business advice for members and to hold 
"clinics" for members to discuss problems of an economic nature. 
(Manual of Proc. at 38).

The Court of Appeals noted that, despite Rotary 
International's written proscription prohibiting "any attempt to 
use the privilege of membership for commercial advantage" (Rotary 
Basic Library, Focus on Rotary, vol. 1, p. 2), four Rotarians 
testified that they joined Rotary to take advantage of the busi­
ness opportunities membership offered, and that dues were paid by 
employers or taken as personal business deductions. That court 
properly concluded:

"The evidence simply does not support the 
trial court's finding that the business 
advantages are merely incidental. By 
limiting membership in local clubs to 
business and professional leaders in the 
community, International has in effect 
provided a forum which encourages busi­
ness relations to grow and which enhances 
the commercial advantages of its 
members".

Rotary Club of Duarate v. Directors of Rotary International, 178
Cal.App.3d 1035, _____ , 224 Cal.Rptr. 2, ______  (1986).

But perhaps the best evidence of the business nature of 
the clubs is the pervasive deduction as business expenses of mem­
bers' dues and club-related expenses. Innumerable surveys and 
interviews have revealed the apparently common practice of

-26-



members and their employers in claiming these expenses as busi­
ness deductions. One survey found that 58% of banks and 53% of 
savings and loan associations contacted regularly paid membership 
dues in private organizations for their executives. Burns, 
supra, 18 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. at 329 n. 22. Law firms sur­
veyed for another article reported that many reimbursed lawyers 
for dues and, even those that did not, repaid client entertain­
ment charges spent at such clubs. See 'Male* Clubs: Bar
Leaders are Members, The Recorder, July 22, 1986. The full 
extent of this practice can be seen best in a letter sent by the 
former president of New York City's University Club to its mem­
bership: "A recent analysis of dues and expense payments showed
that nearly 40% of receipts were paid by checks drawn on business 
accounts: this is only a part of the total since may persons pay
on their own account and then obtain reimbursement from 
employers." Letter of J. Wilson Newman, March 30, 1981,
Testimony of the New York City Comm'n. on the Status of Women in 
Support of Intro. 513 Before the General Welfare Committee, July 
30, 1980. In fact, the financial dependence of most private 
clubs on business support is substantial. The National Club 
Association has estimated that the average city club would lose 
more than $450,000 and the average country club $300,000 if 
employers withdrew their finan cial support. Burns, supra, 18 
Harv. C.R.-C.L. Rev. at 393. In 1980, the same Association 
reported that 37% of city clubs' and 26% of country clubs' income 
came from company paid memberships. The All-Male Clubs: 
Threatened on all Sides, Business Week, Aug. 11, 1980, at 90.

-27-



Rotary International is no different. The trial court 
record disclosed that Rotary members often deduct their dues as a 
business expense obtain reimbursement from their employers. At 
least three of petitioner's witnesses testified that either 
their employers paid their dues (R.T. 20, 32, 69) or that the 
Internal Revenue Service allowed the deduction during income tax 
audits. (R.T. 4, 20). A former treasurer of the Bakersfield 
Rotary Club testified that, out of the club's 200 members, the 
dues of all but eight or ten were paid by their companies or 
business. (R.T. 70.)

Such practices clearly belie any argument that such 
clubs are purely social organizations. The federal Internal 
Revenue Code provides that "all the ordinary and necessary expe­
nses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any 
trade or business" may be deducted from income taxes. 26 U.S.C.
§ 162. For the deduction to be allowed for a club-related 
expense, federal tax regulations further require that a club be 
used for business purposes at least 50% of the time. Treas. Reg. 
§ 1.274-2 (e) (4) (iii) (1982). Thus, a member cannot simulta­
neously argue that his club does not serve any commercial or 
business function while deducting dues and other charges as a 
business expense. Treating club-related expenses as a business 
deduction is prima facie evidence that membership serves a busi­
ness purpose or confers a professional advantage.

When all these indicia of "private" status —  selec­
tivity in affiliation and disaffiliation, size, publicity, seclu­
sion, purpose —  are examined, it is clear that Rotary does not 
meet the criteria enunciated in Roberts and other federal and

-28-



state cases for an organization entitled to protection of its 
right of intimate association. Most damaging to Rotary is the 
point on which it has pinned this case: selectivity. The fact 
that Rotary's entire selection process is rooted in commercial 
concerns, and that from this flows the fact that business advice 
and assistance to fellow Rotarians are a central feature of its 
operation, must remove Rotary from the ambit of organizations 
which can be deemed distinctly private.

2. Enforcement of the Unruh Act's Anti-Discrimination 
Provisions Does Not Abridge Club Member's Freedom 
of Expressive Association.

The second aspect of the constitutional right of asso­
ciation identified in Roberts is the "freedom of expressive 
association." As the court there explained, this right derives 
from a series of decisions in which this Court has recognized a 
"right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activi­
ties protected by the First Amendment —  speech, assembly, peti­
tion for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of 
religion. 104 S.Ct. at 3249. Rotary International and its 
individual club members, however, cannot claim immunity from 
California's anti-discrimination law by relying on this component 
of freedom of association. To begin with, Rotary and other com­
mercially oriented clubs do not promote and practice the sorts of 
expressive activities that call forth the special protection of 
this constitutional guarantee. Moreover, to the extent club mem­
bers may be able to claim any protection from this First 
Amendment right, they have not shown, and could not show, that it 
is infringed by application of the Unruh Act. Finally, even if 
enforcement of the Act should cause some incidential burden on

-29-



the male club members' freedom of expressive association, such a 
minimal impact is no greater than necessary to achieve the sta­
te's "profoundly important goal of ensuring nondiscriminatory 
access to commercial opportunities in our society." _Id. at 3257 
(O'Connor, J., concurring).

a. Rotary International and Club Members Cannot 
Claim the Protection of the Constitutional 
Right of Expressive Association.

In Roberts, this Court explained that the right to asso­
ciate for expressive purposes, while not itself explicitly 
guaranteed by the Constitution, was a necessary concomitant of 
the individual's liberty to engage in protected expressive acti­
vities. 104 S.Ct. at 3249-50. As such, the right does not 
confer an immunity from government regulation upon all asso­
ciations and clubs, but it applies only to those organizations 
whose purpose for associating is "the advancement of beliefs and 
ideas." NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 499, 460 
(1958). Because Rotary International and the other service and 
business-related clubs like it throughout the country are not the 
types of organizations whose activities or purposes warrant spe­
cial First Amendment protection, they cannot invoke this consti­
tutional right in order to maintain their male-only membership 
restrictions.

This Court's extension of First Amendment protection to 
the internal structure of an association has always been tied to 
the rights of free speech, petition, and assembly that are made 
textually explicit in the constitution. Yet appellants' theory 
of freedom of association would uproot the right to expressive

-30-



association from its First Amendment moorings. They would claim 
constitutional immunity from California's antidiscrimination law 
for an organization whose primary purposes and activities are 
commercial rather than expressive —  an entity that has, in 
effect, "enter[ed] the marketplace of commerce in a[] substan­
tial degree." Roberts, 468 U.S. at _________ , 104 S.Ct. at 3259
(O'Connor, J., concurring). Under the circumstances, acceptance 
of appellants' claim of free association would trivialize and 
even denigrate the First Amendment's protection of free 
expression.

This Court's precedents demonstrate that the degree of 
constitutional protection afforded International's activities 
depends upon the extent to which they further goals independently 
protected by the specific guarantees of the First Amendment. 
Discriminatory conduct, for example, is not entitled to constitu­
tional protection simply because it is practiced by a group, 
rather than by individuals. Rather, the Court must first deter­
mine whether Rotary's activities can appropriately be charac­
terized as protected expression. For, "[i]t is only when [an] 
association is predominantly engaged in protected expression that 
state regulation of its membership will necessarily affect, 
change, dilute or silence one collective voice that must other­
wise be heard." ^d.; see generally, L. Tribe, Constitutional Law
§ 12-23, at 702 (19___) (defining the First Amendment freedom of
association as "a right to join with others to pursue goals 
independently protected by the first amendment —  such as politi­
cal advocacy, litigation (regarded as a form of advocacy), or 
religious worship" (footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original).

-31-



Formal recognition of the right to freedom of expressive 
association first came in NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449. There, 
the Court held that an attempt to compel disclosure of the 
NAACP's membership lists was an unconstitutional infringement of 
the group's associational freedom. The Court expressed concern 
that such disclosure would have a negative impact upon the 
NAACP's expressive activity. Noting that " [e]ffective advocacy 
of public and private points of view . . .  is undeniably enhanced 
by group association." (Id. at 460), the Court traced the right 
of associational freedom to the right of free speech itself: "It
is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the 
advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 
'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech." I<3.

Consistent with this view that freedom of association is 
a necessary corollary to the individual's effective pursuit of 
his or her own protected First Amendment rights, the Cout has 
been dogged in its protection of political parties and other 
political advocacy groups against infringement of their asso­
ciational freedoms. See, e.g . , Brown v. Socialist Workers— 7_4
Campaign Committee, 459 U.S. 87, ____ (1982) (state's campaign
disclosure requirements unconstitutional as applied to Socialist 
Workers Party); Democratic Party v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107, 121 
(1981) (state's mandate that primary results shall determine 
allocation of votes case by delegates at National Convention an 
unconstitutional interference with Democractic Party s right of 
expressive association); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 57

-32-



(1973) ("The right to associate with the political party of one's 
choice is an integral part of . . . basic constitutional 
freedom.").

But, groups whose activities are not so inherently 
expressive have received mixed treatment. For example, in NAACP 
v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429-30 (1963), the Court struck down a 
state statute restricting the associational freedom of a law firm 
engaged in "political expression" to achieve social goals.
Yet, a law firm engaged in an ordinary commercial practice is 
afforded no special First Amendment associational protection.
Thus, in Hishon v. King and Spaulding, 467 U.S. ____,. 104 S.Ct.
2229 (1984), the Court held that a commercial law firm could not 
assert its freedom of association as a defense against the enfor­
cement of federal antidiscrimination laws. See also Ohralik v.
Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447, 459 (19 ) ("A lawyer's
procurement of remunerative employment is a subject only margi­
nally affected with First Amendment concerns"). Moreover, this 
Court would have reached the same result in Hishon even if the 
firm had engaged in a "substantial" amount of activity entitled 
to First Amendment protection. Roberts, 104 S.Ct. at 3260 
(0:Connor, J., concurring).

Similarly, the Court's extension of First Amendment 
associational protection to the internal structure and affairs of 
a labor union has depended upon the nature of the union's activi­
ties. A labor union representing "the general business needs of 
employees," for example, is subject to the government's ratinal 
regulation of its membership. Railway Mail Association v. Corsi,

-33-



326 U.S. 88, 94 (1945) (emphasis added). On the other hand, a 
union engaged in ideological activity is not. See Abood v. 
Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 236 (1977) (State may 
not compel association with union advocating political positions, 
but is permitted to compel association with union engaging in 
commerical activity).

In sum, the right of free speech is at the heart of the 
Court's willingness to extend constitutional protection to an 
association's internal affairs. Associational status does not in 
and of itself confer First Amendment protection; there is no 
right to associate per se. Accordingly, Rotary can claim special 
First Amendment protection under the banner of freedom of asso­
ciation only if it can show that it truly has the purpose of 
advancing beliefs or ideas.

Such a showing cannot be made in this case. There is no 
indication in the record, and no suggestion in appellants' brief, 
that protected expression is even an "insubstantial part" of 
Rotary's purposes and activities. Unlike even the Jaycees, whose 
activities included a modicum of protected expression on politi­
cal, economic, cultural, and social affairs (104 S.Ct. at 3254), 
the record in this case is devoid of any mention that the Rotary 
has ever taken a public position on issues such as the federal 
budget, school prayer, voting rights, or foreign relations. See 
id. at 3255.

Moreover, like the Jaycees, Rotary has chosen to 
"enter[] the marketplace of commerce in a[] substantial degree," 
and in so doing, it has forfeited "the complete control over its

-34-



membership that it would otherwise enjoy if it confined its 
affairs to the marketplace of ideas." Roberts, 104 S.Ct. at 3259 
(O'Connor, J., concurring). As the California Court of Appeals 
found, the "evidence leaves no doubt that business concerns are a 
motivating factor in joining local clubs." J.S. App. C-26.
While, like the Jaycees, Rotarians may "regularly engage in a 
variety of civic, charitable, lobbying, fundraising and other 
activities worth of constitutional protection," Roberts, 104 
S.Ct. at 3254 (citing Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a 
Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 632, 100 S.Ct. 826, 833 (1980), 
the Court of Appeals found "that there are business benefits 
enjoyed and capitalized upon by Rotarians and their businesses or 
employers." J.S. App C-26.-^ The volume of expressive activity 
conducted by the Rotarians is simply not enough to overcome a 
characterization of the organization as a predominantly com— 
merical association. Indeed, that characterization is confirmed 
by the common practice among business firms of paying the indivi­
dual membership dues of their employees, and of members claiming 
their dues as deductible business expenses. See J.S. App. C-25 
to C-26; see also Roberts, 104 S.Ct. at 3261 (O'Connors, J., con­
curring) (relying on fact that business firms pay for the indivi­
dual memberships of employees who belong to the Jaycees).

9/ Appellants persist in citing the trial court opi­
nion to the effect that the business benefits of Rotary mem­
bership are "incidental to the [association's] principal 
purposes," (Brief for Appellant, at 29 (quoting from J.S. App. 
B-3)), even though that finding has been discredited and is of no 
import under California law. See above.

-35-



Accordingly, the Court should not allow Rotary's sweeping invoca­
tion of associational freedom to insulate it from coverage of

10/California's anti-discrlmination law.—
b. Enforcement of the Unruh Civil Rights Act Would 

Not Interfere With Any Expressive Purposes or 
Activities of Rotary International and Other 
Business-Related Clubs.

Even if it could be said that the Rotary and other 
business-related clubs engage in activities that invoke the pro­
tection of the First Amendment right of expression, the clubs 
"have failed to demonstrate that [the Unruh Civil Rights Act] 
imposes any serious burdens on the male members' freedom of 
expressive association." Roberts, 104 S.Ct. at 3254. In par 
ticular, there is "no basis in the record for concluding that 
admission of women as full voting members will impede the organi­
zation's ability to engage in these protected activities or to
disseminate its preferred views." Id.

There is, of course —  as this Court recognized in
Roberts —  no conceivable ground for positing that the con­
sideration of women for membership in Rotary would somehow

10/ This is not to suggest that an essentially commer­
cial enterprise possesses no First Amendment protection for its 
internal affairs and organization. Amici would not deny that the 
infringement of associational rights, even in a commercial con­
text, must bear a rational relation to a state interest.^ See, 
e.g., Abood, 431 U.S. at 222 (interference with labor union's 
associational freedom may be justified by government s interest 
in industrial peace). Here, however, the State of California has 
a legitimate interest in ensuring that the commercial opportunity 
of Rotary membership is denied to no California citizen solely on 
the basis of race, sex, or some prohibited classification.

-36-



interfere with the organization's stated objective: to "provide
humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all 
vocations and help build goodwill and peace in the world." 1981
Manual of Procedure, at 7 [J.A. ___] ^ Nor does rendering of
civic services and responding to community needs in any way 
require a single-sex membership. To the contrary, the record 
established that many Rotary clubs, with the encouragement of the 
International, seek the close cooperation and support of women in 
their service and other club-related activities, even 
establishing auxiliary women's committees for this very purpose.

11/ Any secondary objective of promoting fellowship and 
camraderie among Rotary's members, although no deserving of the 
special constitutional protection reserved for expressive activi­
ties (see Part _______ , supra), is likewise not abridged by the
admission of women into Rotary. As the New Jersey courts have 
declared in rejecting a similar freedom of association defense to 
the hitherto male-only restriction of Little League membership:

Little League also points to the vaunted aims of the 
organization, mentioned in its federal charter of 
development in children of "qualities of citizenship, 
sportsmanship, and manhood," and it implies these 
objectives will be impaired, in the case of boys, by 
admission of girls to the activity. We are quite unable 
to understand how these conclusions are arrived at. 
Moreover, assuming "manhood," in the sense of the 
charter, means basically maturity of character, just 
as does "womanhood," we fail to discern how and why 
little girls are not as appropriate prospects for 
learning citizenship and sportsmanship, and developing 
character, as boys."

National Organization for Women v. Little League Baseball, Inc., 
127 N.J. Super. 552, 318 A.2d 33, 39 aff'd, 67 N.J. 320, 338 
A.2d 198 (1974). In any event, the local Duarte Rotary chapter 
certainly did not believe that the admission of women would 
interfere with the fellowship and camaraderie of its male 
members.

-37-



Cf. Roberts, 104 S.Ct. at 3254-55(Id. at 47 [J .A. ____
(participation of women in many of Jaycees' activities dispels 
claim that admission of women will impair organization's symbolic
message). In short, as in Hishon v. King & Spalding, ___U.S.
___, ___ , 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2235 (1984), appellant "has not shown
how its ability to fulfill such a function would be inhibited by 
a requirement that it consider [a woman] for [membership] on her 
merits.

Indeed, Rotary International does not really contend 
that requiring local clubs to consider women for membership would 
interfere with the achievement of any of the organization's com­
mendable service objectives. Rather, it asserts only that 
admitting women to membership in local California clubs, as the 
Duarte chapter desires to do, "would comprise a material inter­
ference with deeply felt choices of associational preference of 
many Rotarians." (Appellants' Brief at 34; see also J.S. App.

12/ This is typical of most of the so-called "private" 
business clubs and service organizations throughout the country. 
Women are often allowed (and sometimes encouraged) to participate 
in the club's activities as wives or guests, while being denied 
the commercial opportunities and advantages that first-class 
membership would provide.

13/ Appellant International also contends that 
requiring it to permit local clubs to admit women "would risk a 
material and harmful disruption of the cooperative integrity of 
Rotary" due to its dependence on "a delicate balance of divergent 
attitudes in diverse cultures." Appellants' Brief, at 34.
Aside from the fact that the Court of Appeals concluded as a 
matter of state law that the evidence did not support a finding 
that the admission of women into the Duarte chapter "would cause 
the downfall of the District or International or seriously 
interfere with Rotary's objectives" (J.S. App. ____), the disire

-38-



In sum, a p p l i c a t io n  o f  the Unruh Act to  Rotary

International works no infringement on the organization's or its 
members' freedom of expressive association —  if only for the 
simple reason that the male-only membership restriction bears no 
relation at all to the purposes and activities of the Club, 
expressive or otherwise. Like the Minnesota law at issue in 
Roberts, the Unruh Act "requires no change in the [Rotary's] 
creed . . . , and it imposes no restrictions on the organiza­
tion's ability to exclude individuals with ideologies or philo­
sophies different from those of its existing members." 104 S.Ct.
at 3254; cf. J.S. App. C-___ ("Unruh Act] does not require
International to change its objectives or to open membership to 
the entire public at large, nor does it invalidate its selective 
membership requirements."). Accordingly, there is no First 
Amendment violation in this case: "The Amendment does not forbid
regulation which ends in no restraint upon expression or in any 
other evil outlawed by its terms and purposes." Oklahoma Press 
Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 193 (1946). See also 
Marchioro v. Chaney, 442 U.S. U.S. 191 (1979).

13/ (cont'd) to appease the "divergent attitudes in 
diverse cultures" cannot justify unlawful acts fo discrimination. 
When Rotary International conducts its operations in the United 
States and the State of California, it subjects itself to th laws 
of those "cultures," and the "attitude" of the law in this 
country is that women are not to be denied equal access to com­
mercial opportunities and advantages. See generally Sumitomo 
Shoji America, Inc., v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176 (1982) (Japanese 
company operating in United States must comply with Title VII 
prohibition against hiring only male Japanese citizens for execu­
tive, managerial, and sales positions).

-39-



J —__
time and again rejected any notion that the First Amendment
/right of expressive association protects the socialpreferences 
of an organization’s members, at least when tjx*se preferences 
demand the exclusion of an entire categopyof individuals based 
solely on their race or sex: "Indi^ious private discrimina­
tion may be characterized as afdrm of exercising freedom of j
association protected by thjs^First Amendment, but it has never'

j
been accorded affirmative constitutional protections.” Norwood 
— • Harrison, 413^tKS. 455, 470 (1973); accord, Runyon v.
McCrary. 42^if.S. 160, 175-76 (1976); Hishon v. King & Spalding.

^ 4/ T ■ V  _ SRotary International &*- soma other club[ can­not shield ££e££f from_ application of the Unruh Civil Rights Act 
by claiming that a belief in its male-only membership policy is 
one of the fundamental tenets of the organization, and hence is 
expression protected by the First Amendment freedom of associa­
tion. This eseentially is the contention raised by amicus 
Conference of Private Organizations, which asserts, however 
implausibly, that the male-only policy is the sine qua non of 
membership for many Rotarians. (See Brief of the Amicus Curiae 
in Support of Appellants by the Conference of Private Organiza­
tions, at 12-15.) Not only is such an argument unsupported bv 
any evidence in this record, but it confuses the right to 
promote a particular belief —  which is generally protected 
under the First Amendment —  with the right to practice that 
same belief which does not always enjoy constitutional 
protection. This distinction was deemed critical by this Court 
in declaring the racially discriminatory admission practices of 
private nonsectarian schools unlawful under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 
After reviewing the development of the First Amendment right’"to 
engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas" 
(flugting NAACP v. Alabama. 357 U.S. at 460), the ?ourt explained:

From this principle it may be assumed that parents 
have a First Amendment right to send their children to 
educational institutions that promote the belief that 
racial segregation is desirable, and that children 
have an equal right to attend such institutions. But 
it does not follow that the practice of excluding 
racial minorities from such institutions is also protected by the same principle. . .

[cont'd]



In sum, a p p l i c a t io n  o f  the  Unruh G-i v i l  Rirghfr̂  Act to

Rotary International works no infringement on the organization's 
or its members' freedom of expressive association —  if only for 
the simple reason that the male-only membership restriction 
bears no relation at all to the purposes and activities of the 
Club, expressive or otherwise. Like the Minnesota law -at issue 
in Roberts, the Unruh Act "requires no change in the [Rotary's] 
creed . . . , and it imposes no restrictions on the organiza­
tion's ability to exclude individuals with ideologies or 
philosophies different from those of its existing members." 104
S.Ct. at 3254; £f. J.S. App. C-___ ("[Unruh Act] does not
require International to change its objectives or to open 
membership to the entire public at Large, nor does it invalidate 
its selective membership requirements."). Accordingly, there is 
no First Amendment violation in this case: "The Amendment does
not forbid regulation which ends in no restraint upon expression 
or in any other evil outlawed by its terms and purposes." 
Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 193 
(1946). See also Marchioro v. Chaney. 442 U.S. 191 (1979)

Runyon v. McCrory, 427 U.S. at 176 (emphasis in original). See 
also Railway Mail Association v. Corsi, 326 U.S.88. 93-94 (19 45~ —

It is conceivable, perhaps, that for some types of pwLa-t 
organizations, such as the Klu Klux Klan, the expressive content 
of its discriminatory membership criteria is so intimately tied 
to the very purposes, beliefs, and pronouncements of the 
organization, that government regulation of' its membership 
criteria would constitute an infringement on its freedom of 
expression, requiring a court to determine whether that 
infringement may nevertheless be justified by compelling state 
interests that could not be achieved by less restrictive means. 
But that is certainly not the situation here.

^  [cont,'d]



(right to associate for political purposes is not infringed by 
state regulation of political parties that does not in fact 
burden the exercise of any political rights).

Z. Any Intrusion on Rotary International's or Its 
Club Members* Freedom of Expressive Association 
Is Justified by the Compelling State Interest in 
Ensuring Non-Discriminatory Access to Commercial 
Opportunities in Our Society.

This Court has often admonished that, however valued
the right to associate for expressive purposes may be, it is not 
absolute. Rather, " [i]nfringements on that right may be 
justified by regulations adopted to .serve compelling state 
interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be 
achieved through means significantly less restrictive of 
associational freedoms." Roberts, 104 S.Ct. at 3252 (citing 
cases). Here, as in Roberts, to the extent that application of 
the Unruh Civil Rights Act creates any burden on appellants' 
right to associate, that impact is no greater than is necessary 
to achieve the state's goal of eradicating discrimination, a 
compelling state interest "of the highest order." Id. at 3253.

Rights Act —  and its application to Rotary International in 
this case —  "plainly serves compelling state interests of the 
highest order." Id. The State uf California, sensitive t

i and pluralistic nature of its populace'^s well as to- its
_____ I fnral origins^ has histor ically been deeply committed tb'̂

As discussed in Part ____, supra, the Unruh Civil

•j Ls citizens an environment where all percons,



PK77#3

3 of race, creed, color, national origin, or sex,/have a fair 
andx «cjual opportunity to participate fully in tho^business, 
professional, civic, and political life of th/ community. This 
commitment\s embodied not only in laws liXe the Unruh Act and 
the general constitutional proscriptions against invidious 
discrimination, bb£ in a specific st^te constitutional guarantee 
safeguarding every ir^ividual's right freely to pursue business 
and professional opportuh^ties/vithout regard to his or her 
"sex, race, creed, color, ot\national or ethnic origin." Cal. 
Const., Art. I, sec. 8. /California has found, with ample 
support (see Part /  supra), thbh one very real barrier to
the advancement of Women and minorities in the business and 
professional life of the state is the discriminatory practices 
of certain membership organizations where business opportunities 
are promoted, deals are frequently made, and the\personal 
contacts necessary for business purposes, employment^ and 
professional advancement are found and nourished. — New Y-&d<
City l o c a n a w  ~63-,seCi— 3r—{-legislative fi-ndimg-s-eoneer^imq—/
Ĉompelling interest—jn prohjnhirtinng-d4̂ ce4ffl4nafco.r-jj--pr.aoh i of
many so-called "private" clubs and organizations!-.______ _______J

This Court has long recognized the harm that results, 
both to the individual and to society as a whole, when persons 
are denied equal access to commercial opportunities in our 
society based on arcane and stereotypical notions about their 
needs and capacities: "It thereby both deprives persons of
their individual dignity and denies society the benefits of wide 
participation in political, economic, and cultural life."
Roberts, 104 S.Ct. at 3253. Here, perhaps even more— than— rn

Y 3



Roberts

PK77#3

the issue has serious social and personal implications,
for the question presented is whether an organization that
purports to foster the most charitable and humanitarian ideals
and activities may be permitted to conduct itself in a manner
that prohibits a woman, simply because she is female, from
participating fully and equally in the life of the community.
As the Court of Appeal concluded, International's discriminatory
policy towards women evidences its failure to practice the
fairness "to all" that the organization preaches and that the

t <
law requires. See J.S. App. C-___ I

I ̂  7f /
~ Rotary International contends that the state's inter­

est-in eliminating discrimination is not sufficiently compelling 
in this case because Rotary is not engaged in the distribution 
of "publicly available goods, services and other advantages "
See Appellants' Brief at 26-36. In the first place, Interna­
tional's argument is wrong on the facts. Like the Court in 
Roberts,  ̂the Court of Appeal below found that Rotary Interna­
tional did irrdeed provide numerous "goods, privileges, and 
services" to its members, including many Rotary publications and 
the right to attend "business relation conferences" and other 
programs where a member could "learn management fcont'd]



Moreover , the Unruh Ci vi 1 Rights Act advances
profoundly important goal of ensuring nundlscrlmTnatoryina

ccess to commercial opportunities" (Roberts. 104 S Ct-— at-_3257

mination that nothing more effectively achieves the state's goal 
of ensuring equality of opportunity than requiring equality of

ness or professional skills." J.S. App. C-___. Second, Inter­
national's attempt to distinguish the strength of the state's 
interest in this case from that in Roberts by contrasting its 
allegedly selective membership requirements with Roberts' refer­
ences to publicly available goods and services is misplaced1.
This Court's use of that phrase was occasioned by the language 
and breadth of Minnesota's Human Rights Act, which makes 
specific reference to "public accommodations" and "publicly 
available" goods, services, etc. in defining the scope of its 
coverage. See Minn. Stat. § 363.03, subd. 3 (1982) (quoted at 
104 S.Ct. at 3248). By contrast, the Unruh Act's reach is not 
expressly limited to "public accommodations," but — consistent 
with the state's goal of ensuring equal access to all commercial 
opportunities in our society —  employs instead a functional 
definition that bars discrimination "in all business establish­
ments whatsoever ~Thp--9ta-te* s interest in elimfridLing— rnvid i-»

/an

ng

concurring)) i restrictive means—
—law reflects the California Legislature's deter­

reslrictivc means

[cont'd] techniques that help improve his own busi-

-  -



opportunity. And that is all that the Unruh Act requires. As 
discussed above, the law makes no attempt to interfere with, and 
has no impact upon, the purposes and activities of the Rotary 
organization. The Unruh Act requires no change in Rotary's 
creed or in its selective membership practices. It demands only 
that women be given the same opportunity as men to join'Rotary, 
that blacks be given the same opportunity as whites to benefit 
from the services and advantages that membership in Rotary 
provides. The law does not seek to dictate the club members' 
choice of associates, but only to give that choice wider scope 
by removing an artificial barrier to membership that bears no 
relationship to any legitimate functions or objectives of the 
organization. As such, the Unruh Aci "'responds precisely to 
the substantive problem which legitimately concerns' the Statei
and abridges no more speech or 'associational freedom than is 
necessary to accomplish that purpose." Roberts, 104 S.Ct. at 
3255 (quoting City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent. ___ U.S.
___ 9 104 U.S. 2118, 2132 (1984)) .



Women's Bar Association of the State^ef— Kew York-
The Womens Bar Association of the State of New Y<- 

(WBASNY) is a statewide membership organization of more .
2,500 female and male lawyers, law graduates, and law stude 
committed to the goal of advancing the status of women under \. 
law, in the workplace, and in all fields of human endeavor. In 
support of this goal, WBASNY has participated in cases which 
seek to secure women's rights under the law and to remove the 
barriers which prevent women from achieving their full potential

in society. Among the barriers which WBASNY seeks to eliminate 
is women's exclusion from clubs and organizations important to 
the business and civic life of the community. In support of 
that goal, WBASNY participated before this Court|&Tan amicus in 
In the Matter of United States Power Squadrons v. State Human
Rights Appeal Board. 59 N.Y.2d 401 (1983)/ t



6~—

APPENDIX i
Statements of Interest

' NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN

("NOW") is a national membership organization of 
\ s v  <nro

women and men in over-SSfl chapters throughout 

the country dedicated to assuring equal economic, social 

and political opportunity for all women. Since its 

founding in 1967, NOW has been the largest feminist 

membership organization dedicated to combatting sex

discrimination and removing barriers to women's full 

participation in all aspects of American society.

Jiiliftneaeia^ehapter-w f- NOW participated as amicus 

curiae kfeTbispcffSe before the Minnor.oln Snppcmn t.nm'L

NOW recognizes the import- 

ance of equal access for women to organizations like 

tho UTS; Jayet^  which provide teadepohip-dovqlopmftot 

ami 111111ii11_i i i im iiI iliirt#'mnl fiiMilitllli entry into a net-

work of influential business and community leaders.

hi 0^

7T7as. <io<r C*SH).
a-1



V'  AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE ("AJC")

is o national organization of approximately 50,000

members which was founded in 1906 for the purpose of

protecting the civil and religious rights of Jews. AJC

believes this goal can best be accomplished by helping

to preserve and promote the constitutional rights of all

Americans. Specifically, AJC supports equal rights

tinder the law for women and is committed to the

elimination of gender-based discrimination,
C 'r'~3'~ ‘C*o O.s, £,0<i CtitHj.

- —̂ ^NTEITTO R CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

t''CCR") was born of the civil rights movement in the 

SoJth. CCR attorneys have been active in many of the 

struggles for equality waged by different groups in our 

society. CCR attorneys have been involved in cases 

dealing with employment discrimination, reproductive 

rights, voting rights and fair housing. Through litigation 

and public education, CCR has worked to protect and 

make meaningful the constitutional and statutory rights 

of women, Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Native Americans and 

Chicanos.

a-2

COALITION OF LABOR UNION WOMEN 

("CLUW") is a membership organization of labor union 

women who are interested in improving working 

conditions and eradicating sex discrimination in all 

aspects of employment and employment related 

advancement. CLUW believes that organized and 

unorganized women are entitled to full participation in _̂p

all facets of business and civic life.
3 u . s ,  o r  C d f i ) .

---------- ‘CONNECTICUT WOMEN'S EDUCATIONAL

AND LEGAL FUND ("CWEALF") is a non-profit public 

interest law firm specializing in cases of sex 

discrimination. Since its inception in 1975, CWEALF 

has represented women in numerous cases, including 

women seeking equal access to organizations with 

discriminatory membership policies. CWEALF has also 

been active in educating women about their legal rights.UCCII a c u v t  111 f, viiivii 2*

C^t5/VLi-
... O . s .  £,0? C m

EQUAL RI&HTS AD 

San Francisco based, publi 

tional corporation specia 

discrimination. It h^s a long

*0
CATES, INC. is a 

erest legal and educa- 

in the area of sex 

istory of interest,

a-3



activism and advocacy in all areas of the law which 

affect equality between the sexes. hqual Rights 

Advocates, Inc. has been particularly concerned with 

gender equality in career development because 

• economic equality is fundamental to women's ability to

a-4

NATIONAL CONFERLNCE OF WOMEN'S

BAR ASSOCIATIONS is an organization of women's bar 

associations located in 40 states. Membership in these 

associations includes more than 70,000 women lawyers 

who share a dedication to the advancement of women in 

law and in the society as a whole. Equal access to 

organizations such as the United States Jaycees is vital 

for women's advancement in the business and 

professional world; such organizations provide members 

with the skills, contacts and support needed for 

success. By withholding membership from women 

professionals, such organizations restrict the 

opportunities available to the members of the 

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF WOMEN’S BAR ASSO­

CIATIONS to succeed in their chosen occupation.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BUSINESS 

AND PROFESSIONAlX WOMEN'S CLUBS, INC. 

("B.P.W./U.S.A.") promobzstull participation, equity, 

and economic self-sj/ificiency 'for working women. 

Founded in 1919, R/P.W./U.S.A. r e p r in ts  over 150,000

a-5



women and men in 3T&0 organizations, with at least one 

local organization in e/eryScMigressional district in the 

United States.

, NORTHWEST WOMEN'S LAW CENTER

("Law Center") is a non-profit, membership-supported 

organization based in Seattle, Washington, that seeks to 

promote the rights of women through law. The Law 

Cen’er conducts educational and informational referral 

programs to advise women in the Pacific Northwest of 

their legal rights. It also sponsors litigation working 

towards the total elimination of sex discrimination, 

including the eradication of employment discrimination 

and of social and legal barriers that deny women full 

participation in the business and professional world. 

The Law Center has filed

yt^_C^ujlL^njLT>e^Le 'the^iutod'-Stafes--Court' of

^Pjgal^-foi^-Lhe-NmttL-Gircuit, afffL has~parUcipated- as 

^ouftseC-aqd a s ,-amices curiae -bgjoce—statg> trial—and

OOtnjlSr— Q^< C W  1
V  <o 5 U ,-S. 6 a ? C * 9  <5 ^3

c ‘ ^  a* a-e a  <7c?^r d

u. ca 4  Z 1 ^ , r c / >

WOMEN EMPLOYED is a Chicago-based or­

ganization with a membership of 3,000 women workers. 

Over the past nine years, the organization has assisted 

working women with problems of sex discrimination. 

WOMEN EMPLOYED also monitors the enforcement, 

actions and policies of the EEOC and Office of Federal 

Contract Compliance Programs with regard to a broad 

range of sex discrimination issues.
l/-*V 0̂.8. (X > C, c—<_

r X  l^oUavVt »■ J f */& o O C <*? *"0.
^ WOMEN'S ACTION ALLIANCE, INC., a. >• <v

national non-profit organization, works towards full 

equality for women by developing educational programs 

and services that assist women and women's organiza­

tions. The issues at stake in this case are critical to 

that equality which is denied whenever women are bar­

red from full participation in institutions crucial to

ctvvatheir development.
Cr^UST —

7 <;8 o -s- <i°? ('1 y
i i in M U w c  n  a d

Ail <cx~- c*—

WOMEN'S BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE 

STATE OF NEW YORK ("1VBASNY") is a membership 

organization of approximately 2,000 female and male

L-. U>' ̂
a-7

I



' .
\

' Vw

attorneys, law^graduutes and law/students committed to 

the advancemen\of womenVrights. IVRASNY coope­

rates with and aidk and/ supports organizations and 

causes which advance Ufts^status and progress of women 

in society. Full acjr^ss by Ayoinen to decision making 

positions is ope of its primary gorNs.

WOMEN'S EQUITY ACTION LEAGUE

('WEAL") is a national non-profit membership organiza­

tion specializing in economic issues affecting women 

and sponsors research, education projects, litigation and 

legislative advocacy. WEAL is committed to the full 

and effective enforcement of anti-discrimination laws 

at both the federal and state levels, to assure that all 

economic opportunities are available to women as well 

as men.

WOMEN'S LAW PROJECT ("WLP") is a non­

profit feminist law firm dedicated to eliminating sex 

discrimination through litigation and public education. 

Since its founding in 1973, WLP has been concerned with

a-8

institution'll barriers to the advancement of women at

all levels of participation in society. WLP has

represented women seeking admission to all male

educational institutions and community organizations,

and strongly believes that participation in such

organizations is fundamental to the ability of women to

compete equally in business and community life.
♦

' J  ' WOMEN'S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 

("WLDF") is a non-profit, tax-exempt membership 

organization, founded in 1971 to provide pro bono legal 

assistance to women who have been discriminated 

against on the basis of sex. The Fund devotes a major 

portion of its resources to combatting sex discrimi­

nation in employment, through litigation of significant 

employment discrimination cases, operation of an 

employment discrimination counselling program, and 

public education. WLDF's experience and knowledge — 

gained from its members who, as professionals, are 

disadvantaged by discriminatory membership policies 

and from its clients who are similarly disadvantaged by

a-9



exclusion from community and business organizations — 

have demonstrated that such exclusionary policies resuit 

in a diminution of employment opportunities.

WOMEN U.S.A. is ah organization 

interested in the gra'te roots concerns of promoting 

women's need to participa^ in tt>e economic, social and 

cultural life of America. 1ft expresses its concern 

wherever women are preveMed fiWi realizing their goal 

of full equality. Exclusion from hdl participation in 

organizations like tne Jaycees is disci\nination which