>>>
oh, the bar scene. what's missing from that picture? a
class action lawsuit
, obviously. we kid. but you know, why is it okay for bars to charge men for more than women? one new
york
man says it's unconstitutional lawyer roy holiander is representing men and several clubs were on occasion ladies pay less or get faster admission. he argues that because the clubs licensed to sell alcohol by new
york
state
they're subject to the
14th amendment
's
equal protection clause
which only applies to
state actors
. unfortunately, for him, the
2nd circuit court of appeals
did not agree. they ruled against him on this week. they even called the pleadings lacking. as "the new
york
post" put it, lola can still get into the copa for free. good morning, sir. i'm sure you're disappointed about the lawsuit. before the legalities here, why -- just tell me your story. what made you want to sue over
ladies night
?
>>
the way it started is it was
christmas eve
2006
. i was standing waiting in line with a couple of my buddies outside a club on
22nd street
and it was cold outside. so we're standing there waiting to get in. the girls come by. they go in. they don't have to wait and they get in free. we, however, had to pay $20. i started thinking, wait a minute. this isn't fair. i brought the lawsuit. and also, if you read the law, the case decision by the
2nd circuit
court correctly, and in detail, you will see that it only says it's not constitutional. it says it is not constitution alto have ladies nights where they charge men more for a drink than girls. however, it is permissible under this skigs to charge guys more for admission. you have to make a distinction whether a club charges guys more for admission for a club or charging guys more for a drink.
>>
all right.
>>
charging guys more for a drink is unconstitutional. that's authority for anybody in any court in the land.
>>
you lost your lawsuit. we can get into that for a minute but just in order to sue and try to say this is a constitutional violation, you know, we are talking about private business here. you have to show that the private business, the bar in this case, is basically a
state actor
. basically, standing in the place of the
state
. otherwise, it doesn't work for this lawsuit. so how did you try to argue that the bars are actually representing the
state
?
>>
okay. well once again, according to the decision by the
2nd circuit
, the
state
involved when you transfer the alcohol across the bar to somebody but the
state
not involved when you enter the door. when the guy shows up at the door and they charge him more, it is okay. because the
state
's not involved. the argument i used was a public
function argument
. the sale of alcohol has traditionally always been controlled by the
state
. both before prohibition and after prohibition.
>>
wait a minute. wait a minute.
>>
that's the argument i used for --
>>
okay.
>>
for
state action
.
>>
okay. but i mean, we only have about a minute left. the
2nd circuit
rejected that argument and basically said, give us a break here. even though the
state
regulates the sale of alcohol, the
state
does not force these bars to charge any one thing. therefore, you're at a court. there's no link between what these private bars did and what the
state
forced them to do.
>>
but you see, that's just one test under
state action
. and that --
>>
rejected all of it, yeah.
>>
the key argument is public function which is a different test. if you have a private entity doing what the
state
traditionally does, with the
state
traditionally has power to do then you have
state action
and that's the main part of the argument. not what you're saying.
>>
okay. but the court did -- i mean, didn't buy that argument either, right?
>>
no. the court didn't address it.
>>
okay.
>>
that's what i'm going to present to the
u.s. supreme court
to see if they'll let me in which i doubt.
>>
okay. well, you already answered my question. you're going to the
supreme court
and not looking for damages, right?
>>
no.
>>
yeah. okay. all right. roy, it's an interesting case. keep us posted on what happens.
>>
will do. thank you.
“ ”