Getting refused at a hotel

[Accidental_Martyr]

@Gary_T

So what do you tell them? You obviously haven’t told them there are no vacancies, which would have been said at the get-go. It’s not until after you’ve seen their ID (or at least asked for a home address) that you say you won’t rent them a room. How the hell do you explain it then, and what’s wrong with the simple truth? It seems that other places mentioned in this thread do it. Are they owned/managed by noobs?

I was wondering the same thing.

[ruadh]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yes: the common law rule I mentioned earlier. Except in Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Mississippi and Tennessee, the common law rule has not been abrogated.

That isn’t actually a cite, it’s just an assertion. What case(s) does this common law rule derive from?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@ruadh

That isn’t actually a cite, it’s just an assertion. What case(s) does this common law rule derive from?

It was cited in my original post on the subject. There are a number of cases referenced in the article from the 15th century, most of which were filed by anonymous parties.

[StusBlues]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It was cited in my original post on the subject. There are a number of cases referenced in the article from the 15th century, most of which were filed by anonymous parties.

I’d be a lot more convinced if your cite was from something more recent than 1938. Unless my reading is way off, that article upholds the innkeeper’s right to exclude Jews.

@Elendil_s_Heir

I’m amazed to hear some hotels have this policy. I often hear radio ads for hotels encouraging local folks to come for weekend getaways, offering package deals with restaurants, museums, sporting events, big concerts, etc.

But that’s WITH a reservation. The OP is talking about someone coming in without advance plans. Different ballgame.

@even_sven

When I desk clerked, I’d quote locals ludicrous rates (unless they called ahead with a good story). If you don’t want to do it in your house, we probably don’t want it in ours. Even a little bit of drama- one arrest, one yeller

You’d have a problem giving a room to the best doggone dog in the West?

Excuse me, I have to cry now.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

More modern sources tend to be paywalled or require Westlaw/Lexis access. The special duty of innkeepers is very much a valid rule of law, though.

At common law a person engaged in a public calling, such as an innkeeper or common carrier, was held to have a duty to the general public to serve without discrimination all who sought service. The Delaware Supreme Court narrowly construed public calling only when there exists an innkeeper-guest relationship. State v. Brown, 6 Storey 571, 195 A.2d 379 (Del.1963). In contrast, owners of private enterprises, such as a restaurant or other place of public refreshment, amusement, entertainment or resort, were under no such obligation, enjoying an absolute power to serve whom they pleased. See Brown, 195 A.2d at 382 (citations omitted); Madden v. Queens County Jockey Club, 296 N.Y. 249, 253, 72 N.E.2d 697, 698 (1947). See also Marrone v. Washington Jockey Club, 227 U.S. 633, 636, 33 S.Ct. 401, 57 L.Ed. 679 (1913).

Langdon v. Google, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 622, 634 (D. Del. 2007)

[StusBlues]

Are you saying that Hampton Inn in Springfield, MO has committed a tort against **Vaevictis’ **wife and that she should seek relief through the courts?

Vaevictis, did you call the main number for Hampton Inn nationally? If so, what did they say?

[Victor_Charlie]

@actualliberalnotoneofthose

Racial discrimination is pretty common in the North and rest of the US, as well. I’m not from the south but pretty much every one I know over 40 went to segregated schools, I experienced a lot of very open racism as a child of an interracial marriage in the 1990s, and my brother shared pretty convincing evidence that he experienced segregation at a restaurant just today.

All that said, of course I agree with your point- that I wouldn’t agree with the poster who doubted they cared she was black.

IMHO, they may have discriminated because of her race.

Where do you live that schools were still segregated in the mid '70s?

[Victor_Charlie]

On a number of occassions I’ve had to get a last minute room due to home repairs or remodeling work that made sleeping there untenable. Each time I’ve walked into the lobby well after 11pm with no reservations and had no trouble whatsoever getting a room. In fact, at that hour the room rate is very negotiable. And these were respectable national chains, Hampton, Marriot Courtyard, etc. They never even mentioned the fact my home address was two miles away.

My guess is it has a lot to do with what part of town the hotel is in.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@StusBlues

Are you saying that Hampton Inn in Springfield, MO has committed a tort against **Vaevictis’ **wife and that she should seek relief through the courts?

Vaevictis, did you call the main number for Hampton Inn nationally? If so, what did they say?

I am not qualified to give legal advice. I would say the possibility of a valid action exists, and she should pursue it if she feels she has been wronged. The easy way to see if she has a §1983 action is to send a local white person to try and rent a room, of course.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Victor_Charlie

Where do you live that schools were still segregated in the mid '70s?

Many southern school districts still operated dual systems as late as 1975. The legality of forced busing and other integrating measures wasn’t certain until Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board in 1971.

[lawbuff]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The easy way to see if she has a §1983 action is to send a local white person to try and rent a room, of course.

1983 is color of law actions.

[even_sven]

Go ahead and believe it was racism if that makes you happy.

But, as numerous actual desk clerks have said (perhaps every clerk in this thread), avoiding local walk-ins is a very common standard practice. It’s not universal, and may not even be consistent with an establishment, but it’s very, very common. For most clerks, race doesn’t even have to enter the equation because being local pretty much automatically trumps everything.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@lawbuff

1983 is color of law actions.

Erk. Yes. 1981, not 1983.

[lawbuff]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Erk. Yes. 1981, not 1983.

The COA would not fall under 1981 either, to wit;
(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
Title 7 would control if one claimed discrimination, white or black.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Title VII applies to employment discrimination. The right to make and enforce contracts is the one under which you sue for discrimination in a patron/business setting, although section 2000 would be more appropriate, now that I think about it (since this is obviously a public accommodation).

[lawbuff]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Title VII applies to employment discrimination. The right to make and enforce contracts is the one under which you sue for discrimination in a patron/business setting, although section 2000 would be more appropriate, now that I think about it (since this is obviously a public accommodation).

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred to in subsec. (d)(1)(A),
is Pub. L. 88-352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241, as amended. Title
VII of the Act is classified generally to subchapter VI (Sec. 2000e
et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act
to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000a of
this title and Tables.
Yes, I would think Title 7 is more of a legal remedy. I have never heard of 1981 as being used.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Christian v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 252 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2001) is a frequently cited example. Again, Title VII applies to employment relationships. I am referring to §2000a.

[lawbuff]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Christian v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 252 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2001) is a frequently cited example. Again, Title VII applies to employment relationships. I am referring to §2000a.

In part;

Christian and Edens brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §1981, 42 U.S.C. §2000a,

You are right, I guess 1981 is a remedy. but 200a is the Public accomodation amendment to the Civil rights act, at Title 7 per my other post, so both are good!

[Morbo]

@Victor_Charlie

Where do you live that schools were still segregated in the mid '70s?

Desegragation didn’t happen until 1983 in my school district.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@lawbuff

You are right, I guess 1981 is a remedy. but 200a is the Public accomodation amendment to the Civil rights act, at Title 7 per my other post, so both are good!

Title VII begins at 2000e. The public accommodation section is 2000a. I think we’ve taken this nitpickfest far enough, though.