Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 195 views

    Butler V Adoption Media

    Uploaded by

    Shari Sabrina Abordo
    The plaintiffs, a registered domestic partner couple in California, sued the defendants who ran adoption websites for marital status discrimination after being denied the ability to post their adoption profile. The court ruled that 1) the defendants should not be subjected to damages because the status of California law was unclear at the time, but 2) the plaintiffs could seek injunctive relief as the defendants did not provide a legitimate business reason for their "married-couples-only" policy. The motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Butler V Adoption Media

    Uploaded by

    Shari Sabrina Abordo
    195 views2 pages
    The plaintiffs, a registered domestic partner couple in California, sued the defendants who ran adoption websites for marital status discrimination after being denied the ability to post their adoption profile. The court ruled that 1) the defendants should not be subjected to damages because the status of California law was unclear at the time, but 2) the plaintiffs could seek injunctive relief as the defendants did not provide a legitimate business reason for their "married-couples-only" policy. The motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part.

    Original Description:

    CONFLICT OF LAWS

    Original Title

    BUTLER V ADOPTION MEDIA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiffs, a registered domestic partner couple in California, sued the defendants who ran adoption websites for marital status discrimination after being denied the ability to post their adoption profile. The court ruled that 1) the defendants should not be subjected to damages because the status of California law was unclear at the time, but 2) the plaintiffs could seek injunctive relief as the defendants did not provide a legitimate business reason for their "married-couples-only" policy. The motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    195 views2 pages

    Butler V Adoption Media

    Uploaded by

    Shari Sabrina Abordo
    The plaintiffs, a registered domestic partner couple in California, sued the defendants who ran adoption websites for marital status discrimination after being denied the ability to post their adoption profile. The court ruled that 1) the defendants should not be subjected to damages because the status of California law was unclear at the time, but 2) the plaintiffs could seek injunctive relief as the defendants did not provide a legitimate business reason for their "married-couples-only" policy. The motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BUTLER V. ADOPTION MEDIA, LLC - 486 F. SUPP. 2D 1022 (N.D. CAL.

    2007)

    The Unruh Act clearly prohibited marital status discrimination against registered domestic
    partners in California. The Unruh Act clearly prohibits discrimination based on marital status
    (regardless of whether the affected persons are registered domestic partners) and also based
    on sexual orientation. The Legislature has also confirmed that the enumerated characteristics
    should be construed as illustrative rather than restrictive.

    FACTS:

    Plaintiffs Michael Butler and Richard Butler ("the Butlers") have been registered domestic
    partners in the state of California since 2000. In 2002, they were seeking to adopt a child and
    had been certified and approved to adopt in California. Defendants Dale R. Gwilliam and
    Nathan W. Gwilliam were Arizona residents who run businesses that operate adoption-related
    websites. The defendants adopted a policy allowing only individuals in an opposite-sex
    marriage to post profiles. Plaintiffs sued defendants, alleging violations of the Unruh Civil Rights
    Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 and 51.5; and violations of California's unfair competition and false
    advertising laws, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500. Each side moved for summary
    judgment.

    ISSUE:

    Should the defendants be subjected to damages for marital status discrimination in connection
    with their rejection of plaintiffs’ application?  

    Should the plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief be granted under the circumstances? 

    RULING:

    1) No. 2) Yes.

    CONCLUSION:

    In deciding which state's law to apply, the court found that the failure to apply California law
    would have undermined the Unruh Act, thus California had a significant interest to protect
    while Arizona's interests would not be seriously impaired by applying California law. The court
    found that there was a triable issue as to whether the policy of not allowing unmarried couples
    to post profiles on the adoption website amounted to marital status discrimination. The court
    also found, given the unclear status of California law at the time, the operators should not be
    subjected to damages for marital status discrimination; however, the claim for injunctive relief
    could go forward as the court found that the operators had not actually articulated any
    legitimate business reason for its "married-couples-only" policy. The unfair competition and
    false advertising laws claims were dismissed. Accordingly, the partners' motion for summary
    judgment was denied; the operators' motion for summary judgment was granted as to the
    unfair competition and false advertising claims; granted as to the claims of alter ego and
    successor liability; and denied as to the claims under the Unruh Act.

    You might also like