Lawsuit of the Day: Legal Fight Over Ladies’ Night
So what do lawyers do when they leave the hallowed halls of Cravath, Swaine & Moore?
Some move on to smaller firms. Some, like former corporate partner Robert Kindler, go into investment banking (and make even more money).
But some take more surprising paths. From the current issue of the New Yorker:
A former associate at Cravath, Swain [sic] & Moore, [Roy Den Hollander] had moved to Russia to work as a private investigator. There he met a woman, with whom he returned to New York. They were married in March, 2000, and separated by December. In Den Hollander v. Flash Dancers Topless Club et al., Den Hollander sued his ex-wife and her employer under the auspices of a civil RICO statute. The suit was dismissed.
Did that romantic misadventure leave Hollander with hostility towards women? It might explain his latest legal quest, which is our Lawsuit of the Day:
In June, [Hollander] filed a federal lawsuit alleging that ladies’ nights constitute a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing invidious discrimination, he named as defendants the night clubs A.E.R., Lotus, Sol, China Club, and the Copacabana—which charged lower admission fees for women at, respectively, their Remix Thursdays, Velvet List Wednesdays, Models and Bottles Fridays, Metropolis Fridays, and College Party Thursdays.
What do other crusaders for gender equality make of the case? Karen DeCrow, vice-president of the Greater Syracuse chapter of the National Organization for Women, agreed with Hollander’s legal theory — even if, she noted, “it probably wouldn’t be very fun to go out to dinner with him.”
On the Docket: Hey, La-a-a-dies! [New Yorker]
N.Y. Lawsuit Calls ‘Ladies’ Night’ Discriminatory [National Law Journal]
(14) Comments
Comments
Where exactly is there state action here? I mean, I just took the bar and all, and since I know everything...er, unless I failed miserably, isn't state action a prerequisite to suing private parties for constitutional violations?
This case isn't a total joke. From the National Law Journal article:
"In early June of this year, the California Supreme Court ruled against a Los Angeles nightclub that refused to provide four men the "Ladies' Night" discounts available to women. Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, No. S136154."
"In 2004, a New Jersey administrative ruling that declared ladies' nights violated state discrimination laws led New Jersey lawmakers to pass legislation legalizing the practice. Gillespie v. Coastline Restaurant, No. CRT 2579-03."
well i can tell you that ladies' nights are prohibited udner california's unruh act.
On the state action issue (per the Law.com article):
"Hollander is seeking a declaratory judgment that would clarify whether nightclubs' policies consist of "state action" due to their regulation by the state's Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, and consequently are subject to liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, which allows civil action for deprivation of rights by persons acting under the color of state law."
12:12,
That was my first thought. Seems like any valid cause of action here would have to be statutory rather than constitutional.
Hmm, looking to mere licensing & regulation to find state action is bad news, according to my never-wrong Bar-Bri lectures...
I hate that I live in a world where RIDICULOUS BULLSHIT like this is tolerated and wastes everyone's time and energy. This guy should walk the plank.
Possible lawsuit against Hollander: Ending "ladies' night" discounts would tend to diminish the number of women at bars, which would have a deleterious effect on the ability of men to meet women, thus infringing the fundamental constitutional right (derived from the penumbra of the 9th Amendment and the Sweet Mystery of Life) to get laid.
FAIL.
Dude doesn't have enough to do with his life, it seems.
I think a better title for this post would be "Dog Fight Over Ladies' Night" but hey, that's just me.
1:04 is a prime example of why women should agitate against ladies' night, even if it means you have to agree on this one issue with creeps who buy Russian woman like so much chattel.
What is it with Cravath lawyers and issues with women?
Former Cravath Tax Associate Flees Rape Charges
Anthony Lin
New York Law Journal
March 3, 2006
A former associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore is currently a fugitive fleeing rape charges stemming from his alleged involvement with two teenage girls who prosecutors say he paid for sex.
The Manhattan district attorney's office on Thursday announced its indictment of James P. Colliton, until recently a tax associate at Cravath, on charges of second-degree rape and patronizing a prostitute. Colliton is also facing witness tampering and bribery charges over his alleged attempts to pay the girls not to cooperate with authorities.
He faces up to seven years in prison for each charge if convicted.
According to prosecutors, Colliton, now 41, began paying a 15-year-old girl to have sex with him in the summer of 2000. In addition to money, he also gave her alcohol and marijuana.
Their relationship allegedly continued through 2004, when the girl's 13-year-old sister moved into Colliton's apartment on West 56th Street in Manhattan. The sister and Colliton also then allegedly had a sexual relationship that continued through 2005. Prosecutors claim he paid the girl for specific sex acts about five times a month. He also paid the older sister and the girls' mother to ensure continued access to the 13-year-old.
Love the catch of the New Yorker typo... "Swain [sic]"
If you really want to be entertained, read the complaint in the Flash Dancer's case. The New Yorker article doesn't do it justice. And, if you happen to be at Flash Dancers, give Bianca my love.