L.A. Council Bans Bias at Large Private Clubs : Ordinance, Approved Unanimously, Calls for Fines, Court Action; Bradley to Sign It Thursday

With some members saying the action was long overdue, the Los Angeles City Council voted 12 to 0 Tuesday to make it illegal for the city’s large private clubs to exclude people from membership on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin or disability.

According to its terms, modeled on a New York City law that has been upheld by that state’s highest court, the Los Angeles ordinance would apply to clubs with more than 400 members that provide regular meals, rent facilities and take payments for meetings attended by non-members. The ordinance defines clubs meeting those criteria as business clubs that are subject to state anti-discrimination laws.

Court action to enforce the ordinance could be taken by anyone who believes that he or she has been discriminated against or by the city attorney’s office. Fines of at least $250 and treble damages would be assessed for violations.

Because the final vote was unanimous and included 12 Council members, no second reading is necessary and the ordinance was sent to the mayor’s office.

A spokesman for Mayor Tom Bradley said he will sign the measure at a public ceremony at 1:30 p.m. Thursday. It is to go into effect 30 days after its formal publication.

An emotional high point of the council debate occurred when Councilman Marvin Braude expressed his “personal gratitude” to Councilwoman Joy Picus for writing the ordinance and asked:

“Where have we been all these years? . . . Why has no one suggested this before? Why do we have to wait for New York City to act? . . . I feel chagrined at my share of the responsibility for waiting to this late date.”

Councilman Ernani Bernardi also said action was overdue and demanded assurance that the ordinance will be strictly enforced.

Deputy City Atty. Lewis Gutierrez said the city attorney’s office will try to identify patterns of complaints about discrimination at clubs and will seek court injunctions against any clubs that disobey the ordinance. A club violating an injunction could be found guilty of contempt of court.

One prestigious downtown organization, the Jonathan Club, inspired by an overwhelming vote by its members in favor of changing its policy, took action last month to begin admitting women as regular members. The Jonathan Club already had begun admitting racial and religious minorities. Another club, the predominantly Jewish Hillcrest Country Club, also announced last month that it is admitting its first women members.

The California Club, a neighbor of the Jonathan Club, apparently has continued its 100-year-old all-male policy. The first sentence of its bylaws states, “The membership of the club shall consist only of men over the age of 21 years.”

It was reported this week that California Club representatives had indicated, in talks with public officials, a willingness to change the bylaws and allow women and blacks to join if Picus’ ordinance was delayed or watered down.

After Tuesday’s Council action, California Club President Lawrence P. Day relayed word that he would have no comment. Nor was comment available from James Brewer, manager of the Los Angeles Country Club.

The Jonathan Club issued a written statement saying that although it has adopted nondiscriminatory policies, it continues to oppose the ordinance.

An ‘Obvious Intrusion’

The Jonathan Club statement said that in letters to the City Council, the club’s general counsel, John R. Shiner, contended that the ordinance represents an “obvious intrusion upon the right of private organizations to freedom of association.” Shiner’s letter also said the ordinance contains “a blanket presumption” that the clubs are not really private and that the ordinance is preempted by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the admission of women into the Duarte Rotary Club.

In addition, Shiner said, the ordinance has “extraordinary potential for misuse by litigious individuals who are denied membership in private organizations for reasons unrelated to race, color, creed or sex.”

Picus said that in addition to Shiner’s letter, she received more than 1,600 postcards from Jonathan Club members opposing her ordinance. She said she also received a telephone call from past California Club President John C. Argue Friday in which Argue contended that the ordinance implies that the club is a “public accommodation,” where anyone could walk in and order lunch.

Gutierrez insisted Tuesday that the ordinance does not imply that anyone can walk into the private clubs uninvited and order lunch.

He said it is clearly indicated in the ordinance that clubs can continue to impose social and other criteria for admitting members and that guests must be invited.

Council approval included two relatively conservative councilmen--Hal Bernson and John Ferraro--both of whom spoke in favor of the measure.

Bernson, referring to a letter from Shiner asking that the measure be put to a popular vote, called the suggestion “nonsense.” He said, “These are constitutional rights involved here. . . . The time is past when we can have separate facilities for different groups of people.”

Ferraro said he had been a member of the Los Angeles Athletic Club when, years ago, it changed its policy and became nondiscriminatory. “It became a better club,” he said. “I don’t think the clubs involved now have anything to worry about.”

Other council members, including Picus, said the council and state government bodies are moving to stop discriminatory policies at large clubs in part because they have come to realize that important business decisions are made there and that if women, blacks, Jews or others are barred, they can be at a distinct career disadvantage.

‘It Has to Be’

“In this day and age, it’s unthinkable that such exclusion can continue,” said Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky. “One would have thought that these clubs would have voluntarily dismantled their discriminatory practices. It’s unfortunate this has to be made the law of the city, but it has to be.”

Testifying in favor of the ordinance at a public hearing before the vote were representatives of such organizations as the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.