Page 1
Court of Appeal:
UCLA Not Subject to Suit Under Unruh Act
Zukin Says the Public School Is Not a ‘Business Establishment’
By a MetNews Staff Writer
An action may not be maintained under the Unruh Civil Rights Act against the Regents of the University of California based on alleged discrimination by UCLA against a doctoral candidate because that institution is not a “business,” Div. Four of the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday.
Justice Helen Zukin authored the unpublished opinion, which affirms a judgment of dismissal that was entered after Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Craig Karlan sustained demurrers without leave to amend.
Presiding Justice Brian Currey and Justice Audrey Collins joined in the opinion.
Myralyn OA Nartey, a doctoral candidate at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health, filed suit against the regents after the doctoral committee deemed her dissertation plan to be inadequate and recommended that she be disqualified from doctoral candidacy. She alleged causes of action for gender discrimination, marital status discrimination, racial discrimination, unfair business practices and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Karlan found the pleading infirm on a number of grounds, one of which was that all of Nartey’s causes of action arose under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the university is not a “business establishment,” subject to the act.
Wording of Statute
Civil Code §51(b), a part of that act, provides:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
Zukin said that “[i]t is undisputed that UCLA is a public school” and noted that the California Supreme Court in its 2022 decision in Brennon B. v. Superior Court “held public school districts cannot be deemed ‘business establishments’ that are subject to the Unruh Act.”
Plaintiff’s Contention
Nonetheless, Nartey argued that UCLA raises significant amounts of money through its athletic department and other means. The justice responded that the contention was forfeited by not having been raised in the trial court, but continued:
“Even if these facts were properly before the court, however, they would not lead us to conclude that the Regents are subject to the Unruh Act. As the Brennon court made clear, an entity is only subject to the Unruh Act if it discriminates in its capacity as a business or commercial enterprise….Here, all of Nartey’s causes of action arise from her treatment as a doctoral candidate in UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health. Nartey has not alleged that her claims implicate athletics, intellectual property, or any other alleged business or commercial enterprise undertaken by UCLA.”
‘Core Educational Capacity’
Zukin declared:
“Under Brennon, when public schools are ‘acting in their core educational capacity,’ they are not subject to the Unruh Act….The grading and evaluation of Nartey’s work as a student is squarely within UCLA’s core educational capacity. As Nartey’s claims all arise from UCLA’s activity as an institution of public education, the trial court correctly determined the Regents could not be held liable for Nartey’s claims under the Unruh Act.”
The case is Nartey v. Regents of the University of California, B317392.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company