No Unaccompanied Women Allowed: Florida Strip Club Sued as State and County Laws Collide
The plaintiffs allege staff at a branch of Rachel's strip club prevented them from entering 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."
June 16, 2020 at 02:39 PM
5 minute read
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:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Bankruptcy Filings Rise 16.2% as Interest Rates, Inflation, and End of COVID Relief Hit Hard
3 minute read11th Circuit Revives Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250