Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Vaughn v. Hugo Neu Proler International, 223 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1990)

Citation
Vaughn v. Hugo Neu Proler International, 223 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1990)
Parent Document
Vaughn v. Hugo Neu Proler International, 223 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1990)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1990-09-25

Other Sections in This Document (58)

Full Text

1,066 chars
are but a few examples of cases where California courts have prohibited the retaliatory exercise of private powers. In the present case, permitting defendants to discriminate against plaintiff in retaliation for exercising a statutory right would be contrary to public policy. Plaintiff alleged in her 1985 complaint that defendants were excluding women from the same privileges and accommodations given to men. Because she chose to challenge unlawful discrimination by filing a lawsuit to correct that illegal practice, defendants have engaged in discriminatory conduct towards her as an individual. The public has a strong interest in preventing business establishments from engaging in discriminatory practices for arbitrary reasons. When a person challenges such practices in a suit filed pursuant to the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the public has an interest in protecting that person from retaliatory conduct by the offending party. Accordingly, the general demurrer to plaintiff’s Unruh Civil Rights Act claim should have been overruled. B.2.-H. * IV. Disposition