March 04, 2008

Colorado Man Files Gender Discrimination Complaint Against Colorado Rockies Because Of "Ladies Night" Promotion

Someone call the "waaaam-bulance" for Steve Horner, who is whining about not receiving free tickets from a Colorado Rockies "ladies night" promotion:
A Denver man waging legal war against Ladies Night promotions at bars and clubs in the metro area has scored a victory against the Colorado Rockies.

The Colorado Civil Rights Division issued a probable cause finding Feb. 29 in the gender discrimination complaint filed by Steve Horner against the ball club.

The division ordered the two into "compulsory mediation," according to the letter Horner received Saturday.

"The Rockies could either go into mediation or they could appeal the probable cause finding," said Chris Lines, spokesman for the state Department of Regulatory Agencies, which includes the civil rights division.

Rockies spokesman Jay Alves said today it was "premature for us to make any comment on that issue."

Horner, a self-described anti-feminist, said the complaint stemmed from a Ladies Night promotion on July 25 at Coors Field.

"I asked no fewer then five different employees at and around the gate that day late in July for a voucher for a free game," Horner said today. "I went all the way to the top of the customer service ladder and was blatantly, clearly denied."
Horner claims he is not in it "for the money":
Horner has filed nearly 20 lawsuits in Denver and Aurora municipal courts over ladies night promotions.

He's lost at least four of the suits but he's also won some — judges in two separate suits found in his favor in November.

Those victories, involving two Denver night clubs, yielded less than $100 in each case. But Horner said it's not about the money.

"What I hope results from this is exactly what is happening," he said, "a huge amount of constructive dialogue arguing the ups and downs, ins and outs, the sweet and sour qualities of creating a truly egalitarian society."

He's become a "whipping boy," he said, because he's taking on favors for women, "the darlings of today's society."

"If it were turned around and the cast of characters was different and the Rockies were holding maybe a Gentile night, let's say, and the Jews had to pay," he said, " ... if I was in one of those categories, then I would have lawyers lined up around the block, chomping at the bit to represent me."

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has sided with Horner in the past, including a July 23 resolution in which it "strongly" discouraged ladies nights.

"The commission ... recommends instead that establishments consider neutral promotions involving perhaps free or reduced admissions to a limited number of customers who appear before a certain time," the resolution reads.

Courts elsewhere also have prohibited ladies nights.
. . .
"If the Rockies baseball team ignores the wishes of the civil rights people and continues to discriminate," he said, "I'll take them to district court and work on getting a six-figure award."
Yep, it's clearly not about the money. Maybe we should all get in on this gravy train--class action lawsuit here we come!

Coming from a marketing background, promotions like Ladies Nights or Kids Nights or Mother's Day giveaways (a man sued the Angels for age and sex discrimination, and lost) are designed to bring out segments of the potential market who have been traditionally overlooked, or who may not be the ideal target market for a firm's offerings, or to balance out supply/demand inequalities at less desirable times of the week (most notably at bars). The bottom line is increasing the firm's bottom line--not discrimination and exclusion. Ladies Nights aren't meant to drive away men, but to encourage more to attend--with the implicit promise of the availability of more members of the opposite sex.

Movie theaters employ time and age/military service discounts, as do ski resorts. Should a child or senior discount be eliminated because it is unfair to moonbats like Horner who put personal profit and media attention "equality" first?

**Update from the comments:
"The issue of gender-based pricing has generated a split of opinion among the courts in how to interpret their respective public accommodations statutes. California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Maryland have taken an all-or-nothing approach to interpreting their respective anti-discrimination laws. These states do not analyze price discrimination in terms of degree, but instead have held that any gender-based price discrimination, regardless of severity or motivation, is illegal. In contrast, Illinois, Washington, and Michigan have engaged in a balancing of the alleged discrimination with the motivations behind it and the likely effects. These states have found no actionable discrimination where the price-based discount was not accompanied by an improper motive to prohibit patronage by one sex or the other."

Labels: , , ,

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home