SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 6
No. 14-005
In The Supreme Court of the United States
Spring Term, 2014
JULIA HAMMERSCHMIDT,
Petitioner,
- against -
BLUEGRASS COUNTRY CLUB,
Respondent.
On Writ of Certiorari to the
Supreme Court of the United States
Brief For The Respondent
# 21753
Counsel for Respondent
ii
Question presented
Whether BluegrassCountry Club is a private club and exempt from the stipulations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act when: (1) the club’s membership practices are highly
selective; (2) the club is classified as not for profit and shows a historically consistent
purpose; and (3) nonmembers are allowed a very limited extent of use.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTION PRESENTED……………………………………………………………………….…….ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………….iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………………v
OPINIONS BELOW…………………………………………………………………………………….1
STATUTES INVOLVED…………………………………………………………………………….....1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………………………………………………………...1
A. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS………………………………………………………………1
B. COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AND
DISPOSITION IN THE COURTS BELOW………………………………………………..3
C. STANDARD OF REVIEW…………………………………………………………………….4
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………..5
ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………………………..……7
I. BLUEGRASS COUNTRY CLUB IS A
PRIVATE CLUB AND EXEMPT FROM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT……………………………………………………………………….7
A. The Club’s Membership Selection Practices Are
Both Highly Selective and Subject To Member
Discretion…………………………………………………………………………………….9
B. The Nature of the Organization is Such That
Its Operations, Intent, and Structure Align
With that of a Private Club…………………………………………………………...…13
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
1. Members have a high level of control and
participation in the operations of the BCC……………………………………….14
2. BCC’s history, purpose, and formalities evidence
that they have not simply sought to shirk the
requirementsof the Civil Rights Act………………………………………………15
3. BCC does not actively advertise for members……………………………………16
C. Nonmember Use and Mixed Use of the
BCC-Owned Tracts Does Not Preclude Them
From Private Club Status……………………………………………………………….17
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………20
v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURTCASES
Berkovitz v. United States,
486 U.S. 531 (1988)……………………………………………………………………………………...5
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT CASES
Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc.,
524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008)…………………………………………………………………………18
Jankey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.,
212 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2000)…………………………………………………………………………..7
Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc.,
204 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2000)…………………………………………………………………………..19
Nesmith v. Young Men’s Christian Ass’n. of Raleigh,
397 F.2d 96 (4th Cir. 1968)…………………………………………………...……………..…8, 15, 19
Olinger v. U.S. Golf Ass’n,
2005 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2000)…………………………………………………………………..……18
Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America,
993 F.2d 1267 (7th Cir. 1993)………………………………………………………………………9, 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CASES
Cornelius v. Benevolent Protective Orderof the Elks,
382 F. Supp. 1182 (D. Conn. 1974)…………………………………………………………11, 13, 14
Jankey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.,
14 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (C.D. Cal. 1998)…………………………………………………………….....18
Kelsey v. University Club of Orlando,
845 F. Supp. 1526 (M.D. Fla. 1994)…………………………………………………………..…17, 19
Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc.,
984 F. Supp. 1320 (D. Or. 1998)………………………………………………………………9, 11, 13
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
vi
Page
Reimer v. Kuki’O Golf and Beach Club, Inc.,
2013 WL 1501522 (D. Haw. 2013)………….…………………………………………………...10, 19
Thornton v. Shaker Ridge Country Club, Inc.,
2007 WL 4573199 (N.D.N.Y. 2007)……………………………………………………………….....19
U.S. v. Jordan,
302 F. Supp. 370 (E.D. La. 1969)………………………………………………………………..10,12
U.S. v. Lansdowne Swim Club,
713 F. Supp. 785 (E.D. Pen. 1989)…………………………………………..…………………passim
U.S. v. The Trustees of the Fraternal Orderof Eagles,
472 F. Supp. 1174 (E.D. Wi. 1979)………………………………………………………………12, 14
FEDERALSTATUTES
42 U.S.C.A. § 2000a(e) (1964)………………………………………………………………..……..3,4
42 U.S.C.A. § 12181 (1990)………………………………………………………………………….3,4
42 U.S.C.A. § 12182 (1990)…………………………………………………………………….passim
42 U.S.C.A. § 12187 (1990)…………………………………………………………….…………1, 7, 9
MISCELLANEOUS
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993)……………………………………….…..16

More Related Content

Similar to ADA Compliance Brief Part I

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motions to Dismiss the Third Am...
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motions to Dismiss the Third Am...Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motions to Dismiss the Third Am...
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motions to Dismiss the Third Am...
Louis Contaldi
 
Appellants' Opening Brief 061413
Appellants' Opening Brief  061413Appellants' Opening Brief  061413
Appellants' Opening Brief 061413
J.B. Grossman
 
Chabad Lubavitch v Borough of Litchfield - Appellee Brief, United States Cour...
Chabad Lubavitch v Borough of Litchfield - Appellee Brief, United States Cour...Chabad Lubavitch v Borough of Litchfield - Appellee Brief, United States Cour...
Chabad Lubavitch v Borough of Litchfield - Appellee Brief, United States Cour...
C. Scott Schwefel
 
09/30/11: Amicus Brief in Sackett v. EPA
09/30/11: Amicus Brief in Sackett v. EPA09/30/11: Amicus Brief in Sackett v. EPA
09/30/11: Amicus Brief in Sackett v. EPA
artba
 
09/07/11: Amicus Brief in PPL Montana LLC vs. Montana
09/07/11: Amicus Brief in PPL Montana LLC vs. Montana09/07/11: Amicus Brief in PPL Montana LLC vs. Montana
09/07/11: Amicus Brief in PPL Montana LLC vs. Montana
artba
 

Similar to ADA Compliance Brief Part I (20)

FindLaw | Motion To Dismiss Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Case
FindLaw | Motion To Dismiss Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act CaseFindLaw | Motion To Dismiss Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Case
FindLaw | Motion To Dismiss Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Case
 
Team 5-1
Team 5-1Team 5-1
Team 5-1
 
Loren Data v. GXS Inc. (4th Cir. 2012)
Loren Data v. GXS Inc. (4th Cir. 2012)Loren Data v. GXS Inc. (4th Cir. 2012)
Loren Data v. GXS Inc. (4th Cir. 2012)
 
Even After Campbell-Ewald, Efforts to Moot Class Cases with Early Rule 67 Off...
Even After Campbell-Ewald, Efforts to Moot Class Cases with Early Rule 67 Off...Even After Campbell-Ewald, Efforts to Moot Class Cases with Early Rule 67 Off...
Even After Campbell-Ewald, Efforts to Moot Class Cases with Early Rule 67 Off...
 
Giles v Alto Partners (Opening Brief)
Giles v Alto Partners (Opening Brief)Giles v Alto Partners (Opening Brief)
Giles v Alto Partners (Opening Brief)
 
Scott McMillan v Darren Chaker RICO
Scott McMillan v Darren Chaker RICOScott McMillan v Darren Chaker RICO
Scott McMillan v Darren Chaker RICO
 
Darren Chaker RICO Lawsuit
Darren Chaker RICO LawsuitDarren Chaker RICO Lawsuit
Darren Chaker RICO Lawsuit
 
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motions to Dismiss the Third Am...
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motions to Dismiss the Third Am...Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motions to Dismiss the Third Am...
Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motions to Dismiss the Third Am...
 
Appellants' Opening Brief 061413
Appellants' Opening Brief  061413Appellants' Opening Brief  061413
Appellants' Opening Brief 061413
 
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS LLC IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS LLC IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS LLC IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS LLC IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY
 
Chabad Lubavitch v Borough of Litchfield - Appellee Brief, United States Cour...
Chabad Lubavitch v Borough of Litchfield - Appellee Brief, United States Cour...Chabad Lubavitch v Borough of Litchfield - Appellee Brief, United States Cour...
Chabad Lubavitch v Borough of Litchfield - Appellee Brief, United States Cour...
 
Stone Defense Sentencing Memo
Stone Defense Sentencing MemoStone Defense Sentencing Memo
Stone Defense Sentencing Memo
 
Roger Stone Defense Sentencing Memorandum
Roger Stone Defense Sentencing Memorandum Roger Stone Defense Sentencing Memorandum
Roger Stone Defense Sentencing Memorandum
 
Lit proprights 20449147 051.812.955.17 folder to Tax Return
Lit proprights 20449147    051.812.955.17 folder to Tax ReturnLit proprights 20449147    051.812.955.17 folder to Tax Return
Lit proprights 20449147 051.812.955.17 folder to Tax Return
 
EFF Brief Darren Chaker
EFF Brief Darren ChakerEFF Brief Darren Chaker
EFF Brief Darren Chaker
 
09/30/11: Amicus Brief in Sackett v. EPA
09/30/11: Amicus Brief in Sackett v. EPA09/30/11: Amicus Brief in Sackett v. EPA
09/30/11: Amicus Brief in Sackett v. EPA
 
Appellate Brief
Appellate BriefAppellate Brief
Appellate Brief
 
09/07/11: Amicus Brief in PPL Montana LLC vs. Montana
09/07/11: Amicus Brief in PPL Montana LLC vs. Montana09/07/11: Amicus Brief in PPL Montana LLC vs. Montana
09/07/11: Amicus Brief in PPL Montana LLC vs. Montana
 
Barber Preliminary Injunction Appeal
Barber Preliminary Injunction AppealBarber Preliminary Injunction Appeal
Barber Preliminary Injunction Appeal
 
Ca2 db245114 02
Ca2 db245114 02Ca2 db245114 02
Ca2 db245114 02
 

ADA Compliance Brief Part I

  • 1. No. 14-005 In The Supreme Court of the United States Spring Term, 2014 JULIA HAMMERSCHMIDT, Petitioner, - against - BLUEGRASS COUNTRY CLUB, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States Brief For The Respondent # 21753 Counsel for Respondent
  • 2. ii Question presented Whether BluegrassCountry Club is a private club and exempt from the stipulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act when: (1) the club’s membership practices are highly selective; (2) the club is classified as not for profit and shows a historically consistent purpose; and (3) nonmembers are allowed a very limited extent of use.
  • 3. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED……………………………………………………………………….…….ii TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………….iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………………v OPINIONS BELOW…………………………………………………………………………………….1 STATUTES INVOLVED…………………………………………………………………………….....1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………………………………………………………...1 A. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS………………………………………………………………1 B. COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS AND DISPOSITION IN THE COURTS BELOW………………………………………………..3 C. STANDARD OF REVIEW…………………………………………………………………….4 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………..5 ARGUMENT………………………………………………………………………………………..……7 I. BLUEGRASS COUNTRY CLUB IS A PRIVATE CLUB AND EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT……………………………………………………………………….7 A. The Club’s Membership Selection Practices Are Both Highly Selective and Subject To Member Discretion…………………………………………………………………………………….9 B. The Nature of the Organization is Such That Its Operations, Intent, and Structure Align With that of a Private Club…………………………………………………………...…13
  • 4. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 1. Members have a high level of control and participation in the operations of the BCC……………………………………….14 2. BCC’s history, purpose, and formalities evidence that they have not simply sought to shirk the requirementsof the Civil Rights Act………………………………………………15 3. BCC does not actively advertise for members……………………………………16 C. Nonmember Use and Mixed Use of the BCC-Owned Tracts Does Not Preclude Them From Private Club Status……………………………………………………………….17 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………20
  • 5. v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page UNITED STATES SUPREME COURTCASES Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988)……………………………………………………………………………………...5 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT CASES Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008)…………………………………………………………………………18 Jankey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 212 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2000)…………………………………………………………………………..7 Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., 204 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2000)…………………………………………………………………………..19 Nesmith v. Young Men’s Christian Ass’n. of Raleigh, 397 F.2d 96 (4th Cir. 1968)…………………………………………………...……………..…8, 15, 19 Olinger v. U.S. Golf Ass’n, 2005 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2000)…………………………………………………………………..……18 Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America, 993 F.2d 1267 (7th Cir. 1993)………………………………………………………………………9, 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CASES Cornelius v. Benevolent Protective Orderof the Elks, 382 F. Supp. 1182 (D. Conn. 1974)…………………………………………………………11, 13, 14 Jankey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 14 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (C.D. Cal. 1998)…………………………………………………………….....18 Kelsey v. University Club of Orlando, 845 F. Supp. 1526 (M.D. Fla. 1994)…………………………………………………………..…17, 19 Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., 984 F. Supp. 1320 (D. Or. 1998)………………………………………………………………9, 11, 13 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
  • 6. vi Page Reimer v. Kuki’O Golf and Beach Club, Inc., 2013 WL 1501522 (D. Haw. 2013)………….…………………………………………………...10, 19 Thornton v. Shaker Ridge Country Club, Inc., 2007 WL 4573199 (N.D.N.Y. 2007)……………………………………………………………….....19 U.S. v. Jordan, 302 F. Supp. 370 (E.D. La. 1969)………………………………………………………………..10,12 U.S. v. Lansdowne Swim Club, 713 F. Supp. 785 (E.D. Pen. 1989)…………………………………………..…………………passim U.S. v. The Trustees of the Fraternal Orderof Eagles, 472 F. Supp. 1174 (E.D. Wi. 1979)………………………………………………………………12, 14 FEDERALSTATUTES 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000a(e) (1964)………………………………………………………………..……..3,4 42 U.S.C.A. § 12181 (1990)………………………………………………………………………….3,4 42 U.S.C.A. § 12182 (1990)…………………………………………………………………….passim 42 U.S.C.A. § 12187 (1990)…………………………………………………………….…………1, 7, 9 MISCELLANEOUS Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993)……………………………………….…..16