Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiffs Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford, lesbian women, filed a complaint against Aloha Bed & Breakfast (Aloha B&B) alleging discrimination in public accommodations under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 489. Aloha B&B, operated by Phyllis Young as a sole proprietorship, refused to accommodate the plaintiffs' request for lodging based solely on their sexual orientation. The Hawaii Civil Rights Commission intervened as a plaintiff. The Circuit Court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that Aloha B&B violated HRS § 489-3 by discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Aloha B&B appealed, arguing the case should be governed by HRS Chapter 515's 'Mrs. Murphy' exemption for landlords renting rooms in their residence. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's decision, holding that Aloha B&B qualifies as a 'place of public accommodation' under HRS Chapter 489 and that the exemption does not apply to short-term transient lodging.
Issues
- The court examined whether applying Hawaii's public accommodations law to Aloha B&B's conduct infringes upon the owner's constitutional protections, specifically her asserted rights to privacy, intimate association, and free exercise of religion, and whether the law's application to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations is narrowly tailored to serve the state's compelling interest in prohibiting such discrimination.
- The court addressed whether Aloha Bed & Breakfast, which operates out of a residence and provides lodging to transient guests, qualifies as a 'place of public accommodation' subject to Hawaii's public accommodations law (HRS Chapter 489) rather than being exempt under the 'Mrs. Murphy' exemption in HRS Chapter 515 for rental of rooms by a resident who lives in the accommodation.
Holdings
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's determination that Aloha Bed & Breakfast constitutes a 'place of public accommodation' under HRS § 489-2, subject to HRS Chapter 489 rather than the HRS § 515 'Mrs. Murphy' exemption for residential rentals. Aloha B&B violated HRS § 489-3 by refusing to provide lodging to Plaintiffs Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford on the basis of their sexual orientation as lesbians. The HRS § 515 exemption applies only to longer-term living arrangements where permanent housing is sought, not to short-term transient lodging provided by Aloha B&B to its customers.
Remedies
The Circuit Court granted Plaintiffs and the HCRC's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to liability and declaratory and injunctive relief. The court found that Aloha B&B violated HRS § 489-3 by discriminating against Plaintiffs Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford on the basis of their sexual orientation as lesbians. The Circuit Court enjoined and prohibited Aloha Bed & Breakfast and its officers, agents, and employees from engaging in any practices that operate to discriminate against same-sex couples as customers of Aloha Bed & Breakfast. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's Summary Judgment Order.
Legal Principles
- The court established that questions of constitutional law are reviewed de novo under the right/wrong standard. A party challenging a statute has the burden of showing unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt, and the alleged constitutional violation should be plain, clear, manifest, and unmistakable.
- The court applied standard principles of statutory construction, emphasizing that the foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent obtained primarily from statutory language read in context of the entire statute. Remedial statutes like HRS Chapter 489 are to be liberally construed to further their anti-discrimination purposes, while exceptions to remedial statutes must be narrowly or strictly construed. The court also noted that where statutes overlap in application, effect will be given to both if possible, as repeal by implication is disfavored.
- The court addressed whether the doctrine of ejusdem generis applies to Aloha B&B's claim that it falls outside the definition of a 'place of public accommodation.' The court held the doctrine is inapplicable where the statute's plain meaning is apparent or where applying the rule would conflict with clearer indications of legislative intent. The unifying trait of establishments listed in HRS § 489-2 is that they provide lodging to transient guests, which Aloha B&B clearly does.
Precedent Name
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith
- Lingle v. Hawai'i Gov't Empls. Ass'n
- Flores v. United Air Lines, Inc.
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
- Roberts v. United States Jaycees
Cited Statute
- Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 489
- Federal Civil Rights Act Title II
- Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 368-1
- Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 515
Judge Name
- Craig H. Nakamura, Chief Judge
- Judge Fujise
- Judge Reifurth
Passage Text
- "The privacy right implicated by this case is not the right to exclude others from a purely private home, but rather the right of a business owner using her home as a place of public accommodation to use invidious discrimination to choose which customers the business will serve. 'The Constitution does not guarantee a right to choose employees, customers, suppliers, or those with whom one engages in simple commercial transactions, without restraint from the State.' Roberts, 468 U.S. at 634 (O'Connor, J., concurring). We conclude that Young's asserted right to privacy did not entitle her to refuse to provide Plaintiffs with lodging based on their sexual orientation and that the application of HRS Chapter 489 to prohibit such discriminatory conduct does not violate her right to privacy."
- "The Hawai'i Legislature's omission of the 'Mrs. Murphy' exemption in enacting HRS Chapter 489 provides persuasive evidence that it did not intend such an exemption to apply to establishments, like Aloha B&B, that provide lodging to transient guests. We also conclude that Congress' inclusion of the 'Mrs. Murphy' exemption is instructive, for it demonstrates that Congress believed that a person's residence may constitute a 'place of public accommodation' as an 'establishment which provides lodging to transient guests.' If a person's residence could not constitute a place of public accommodation, then the 'Mrs. Murphy' exemption would not be necessary in the federal public accommodation provision. Congress' inclusion of the 'Mrs. Murphy' exemption in the federal public accommodation law supports our conclusion that a place of public accommodation includes a bed and breakfast business, like Aloha B&B, that uses the proprietor's residence to provide lodging to transient guests."
- "Aloha B&B falls squarely within the statutory definition of 'place of public accommodation' as an 'establishment that provides lodging to transient guests[.]' Our conclusion is bolstered by the stated purpose of HRS Chapter 489 and the Legislature's directive on how it should be construed. HRS § 489-1(a) (2006) states that the purpose of HRS Chapter 489 'is to protect the interests, rights, and privileges of all persons within the State with regard to access and use of public accommodations by prohibiting unfair discrimination.' HRS § 489-1(b) (2006) then directs that HRS Chapter 489 'shall be liberally construed to further' these purposes. When the plain language of the statutory definition of 'place of public accommodation' is liberally construed to further the anti-discrimination purposes of HRS Chapter 489, it reinforces our firm conclusion that Aloha B&B is a place of public accommodation. We conclude that the Circuit Court correctly ruled that Aloha B&B constitutes a place of public accommodation that is subject to HRS Chapter 489. It is undisputed that Aloha B&B refused to provide Plaintiffs with lodging on the basis of their sexual orientation. Therefore, we affirm the Circuit Court's determination that Aloha B&B violated HRS § 489-3 by discriminating against Plaintiffs on the basis of their sexual orientation."