A lawsuit brought by two women alleging they were wrongly denied entry to a Florida strip club because of their gender came before the Fifth District Court of Appeal on Tuesday.

The appeals court heard arguments for and against dismissing the lawsuit, in which county ordinances and state law collide.

Plaintiffs Anita Yanes and Brittney Smith sued in 2018, alleging staff at the Orlando branch of Rachel's strip club said they couldn't enter without a man because they "might take the men's attention from the strippers, or they may be here looking for [their] husbands and cause drama," according to the complaint. Staff also allegedly said unaccompanied women weren't allowed in to avoid prostitution at the club.

Plaintiffs counsel Matthew Dietz of the Disability Independence Group in Miami asked the court to reinstate the case after Orlando Circuit Judge Keith Carsten ruled the Florida Civil Rights Act preempted Orange County's anti-discrimination ordinances. He pointed to three Florida Supreme Court cases spanning 35 years, in which local ordinances were not found to be in conflict with the state statute.

The case has attracted interest from 22 local governments, including the city of Miami Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach County, which plan to file amicus briefs in favor of the plaintiffs.

First Assistant City Attorney for the City of Miami Beach Robert Rosenwald argued on their behalf. He claimed Orange County should have been made a party to the case before the court ruled on the validity of its ordinances, and noted that Rachel's only gave notice of a hearing on the motion to dismiss one business day before, even though the motion was pending for six months.

"What the defendant sought to do was to seek a declaration in defense that the Orange County ordinance was invalid without naming Orange County and allowing it to be heard," Rosenwald said. "The key argument here is that the Florida Legislature has never indicated that it intended the Florida Civil Rights Act to be the sole mechanism by which you can collect damages."

While Florida's Civil Rights Act caps punitive damages and requires parties to exhaust all administrative remedies before suing, the ordinance does not.

Counsel to Rachel's, Altamonte Springs attorney Steven Mason, argued that the plaintiffs were relying on cases that didn't involve preemption issues. He called this case "a hot potato," noting it could have state-wide consequences for conflict and preemption.

Mason also suggested that some county ordinances go too far in allowing litigation against local businesses over alleged discrimination without having an administrative review process.

"It is absolutely mind-numbing that you can live in Miami or Dade County and you can be hauled into court the very next day after the alleged discrimination because you're too tall, you're androgynous, you're too short, you're too heavy," Mason said. "This idea we're going to create this world utopia, that's fine, we can all debate that, but that's the legislature's prerogative about whether or not we're going to create a utopia and whether or not we're going to create these special classifications."

Dietz begged to differ, arguing that it's particularly telling that lawmakers haven't taken up this issue, even though they regulate commerce across counties.

"If the legislature wants to stand up and say, 'You cannot legislate this,' they've had opportunities since 1977, many times, and they have chosen not to," he said.

Dietz also nodded at Monday's landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, which found employees can't be fired for being gay or transgender.

"It's a little bit strange on the day after the Supreme Court decided the Bostock v. Clayton County case my client has the issue to talk about what values are in 1977 Miami Beach," Dietz said. "Miami-Dade had the values to allow all human beings, whether gay or straight, to have equal rights, and now it's the law of the country."

Fifth DCA Chief Judge Kerry Evander served on the panel with Judges Richard Orfinger and Brian Lambert. Evander raised a potential problem with the court finding a county's ordinance can be declared unconstitutional, without that county being a party to the case.

But Mason countered that no decision has ever required a defendant to name another party as part of a case, and said even if the county were added to the case, "we're going to be right back here."

The court is yet to rule.

Read more: