Order from Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Kralik McGee v. Universal City Studios, Inc.decided on April 30, but just posted on Westlaw:
Plaintiffs…claim they were at Universal Studios Hollywood, a theme park of defendant Universal City Studios LLC. They allege that on July 18, 2021, defendant “Beetlejuice Doe” (an employee of defendant Universal City Studios, LLC), in the course and scope of his work, dressed up as the fictional Beetlejuice character from the 1988 film to greet visitors and visitors. The plaintiffs claim they stopped to take a photo with the defendant, Beetlejuice Doe. Marisol McGee (Latino woman) poses with defendant Beetlejuice Doe, John McGee (African American man) takes the photo, and Dylan McGee (mixed-race minor boy) watches. They allege that while taking the photo, defendant Beetlejuice Doe displayed racist and offensive “white power” gestures.
The complaint says the gesture goes like this (which most of us know as the “OK” gesture when the lines and words aren’t there):
The plaintiff filed the lawsuit alleging, among other things, a violation of California’s law prohibiting all forms of discrimination in public accommodations (the Unruh Act), but the court granted Universal’s motion to dismiss:
…Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s perception of Plaintiff’s race, ethnicity, color, ancestry and/or national origin was the material motive for Defendant’s conduct and that Defendant’s conduct/omission was the legal cause of Plaintiff’s damages…. [They] Claim that the gesture is a symbol of “white power” and provide facts and evidence from various organizations and news outlets to support that it is not only a “good” symbol, but a symbol of “white supremacy.”
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants should have known that in the years leading up to the incident, the gesture had become known as a “white power” symbol used to target and express hatred against specific groups of people based on race, ethnicity, color and ethnicity. “White power” gestures are considered intolerable in civilized society. The plaintiffs claim that UCS is a subsidiary of Comcast Corp., one of the news outlets that reported the symbol, and therefore it should have been aware of the reports. The plaintiffs allege that UCS actually noticed the “White Power” symbol because UCS has been sued at least twice before for using a “White Power” hand gesture via its “Felony Gru” character in 2019 and issued public statements and apologies that it did not Hopefully guests will experience what these families went through and steps will be taken to ensure something like this never happens again….
The plaintiff alleges the fact that many others used “white power” or “ok” hand gestures with intent. However, as evidenced by oral argument, they did not present any additional facts to explain why defendant Beetlejuice Doe’s character may have used the gesture, or why UCS allegedly authorized him to do so.
The plaintiffs are inferring the specific meaning of what their own exhibit describes as “a distinct and ancient gesture that has appeared in many cultures over the years with varying meanings.” In fact, the exhibit includes images that the plaintiffs included in their complaint to explain the gesture’s new meaning. Although the plaintiffs previously objected to the court considering that evidence, they have now attached it to the complaint. Part of the exhibition content is as follows:
Today, the widespread use of the “ok” gesture remains for its traditional purpose as a gesture of agreement or approval. Therefore, a person using the symbol cannot be considered to be using the symbol in a parody or specifically white supremacist context unless other contextual evidence is present to support that argument. Since 2017, many people have been falsely accused of being racist or white supremacist for using the traditional and harmless “ok” hand gesture.
Likewise, Exhibit B states, “It’s impossible to tell whether the symbol is a sincerely sinister shorthand for white supremacy or simply a silly magic spell that triggers liberation at the flick of a finger.” The exhibit claims the symbol’s use is “a bit racist.” , but concluded that the assessment amounted to a “wild guess.” Although it has been noted that some racist groups have used it as a symbol of white power, it continues to be used in sign language, yoga, and as a signal that all is well. This analysis conflicts with that of the plaintiffs’ attorneys [Complaint] itself, but it is [Complaint] Bring it to court. that’s all [Complaint] Acknowledge that the gesture itself is ambiguous. Given the ambiguous nature of the signal, inappropriate intent cannot be inferred from the gesture itself.
With this amendment, it is clear that the mere use of this gesture is the issue here. The plaintiffs did not allege any new facts or context about the incident itself to support an argument that intentional racial discrimination or harassment occurred. To provide such context, not even a photo of the allegedly offensive gesture was included. Therefore, the court’s analysis remains unchanged. Whether some or all internet pundits find this gesture offensive or innocent, a little bit of both, or neither, is beside the point. There are no facts regarding this incident that indicate that the defendant Beetlejuice Doe character or UCS intended to be racially profiled other than as a gesture. [Complaint] Now admit it is ambiguous.
The test as to whether a crime against a protected class has occurred must be objective and not subjective, as the plaintiffs require. Entertainment and literature often contain material that is offensive to some people. For example, compare the opinions of the majority United States sues over a book called “Ulysses” (2d Cir. 1934) 72 F.2d 705, which regarded James Joyce’s “Ulysses” as “a work of symmetry and a certain craftsmanship.” Opponents argued that parts of the book were “too indecent to be added as footnotes to the opinion.”
The court did not know whether observing subjectively offensive material at an amusement park constituted a case of intentional discrimination or denial of service, and in fact was unwilling to extend the Unruh Act that far because it would open the court to endless possibilities. number of cases. For example, some customers might easily accuse a Beetlejuice character of being offended by their religious beliefs simply because of their appearance. The entire “world” of the park is dedicated to attracting young people to witchcraft, which may also offend traditional religious values.
In this case, the regulation of speech is based on changes in meaning and subjective perceptions rather than explicit prohibitions. Allowing the Unruh Act to be used as a speech code would make it vulnerable to First Amendment challenges, according to evolving opinions among internet experts on proper use. It also seems to trivialize the original goals of a proud statute that has been a fundamental part of California’s civil and legal system since its enactment in 1959, thus requiring equal treatment under the law for generations. The California Legislature certainly has the ability to go beyond the Unruh Act and pass laws prohibiting certain forms of speech and conduct in business establishments, but it must do so clearly and directly so that the legislation can be clearly understood and therefore complied with. . or subject to a constitutional challenge before citizens suffer damages, fines, and attorneys’ fees….
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence.
