Roman v. Concharty Council of Girl Scouts, Inc.

195 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11506, 82 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,077, 88 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1310, 2002 WL 745777
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Georgia
DecidedMarch 1, 2002
Docket4:99-cv-00111
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 195 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (Roman v. Concharty Council of Girl Scouts, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roman v. Concharty Council of Girl Scouts, Inc., 195 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11506, 82 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,077, 88 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1310, 2002 WL 745777 (M.D. Ga. 2002).

Opinion

ORDER

LAND, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant Concharty Council of Girl Scouts, Ine.’s motion for partial summary judgment. After careful consideration of the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and the record as a whole, the Court grants Defendant’s motion.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 19, 1995, Plaintiff, a Hispanic female, was hired by Defendant, the Con-charty Council of Girl Scouts, Inc. (“Council”), to assume the position of Regional Director. On May 29, 1997, the Council terminated Plaintiffs employment. Subsequent to her discharge, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On February 23, 1999, Plaintiff received her Notice of Right to Sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On May 19, 1999, Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Council pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. On August 10, 1999, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division. Defendant filed its motion for partial summary judgment on September 29, 2000, contending that it is exempt from coverage under Title VII and the ADA because it is a “bona fide private membership club.” Defendant’s motion appears to present a question of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit — whether a Girl Scouts organization is a “bona fide private member *1379 ship club” for purposes of Title VII and the ADA. 1

DISCUSSION

Title VII exempts from its coverage “bona fide private membership clubs” which are exempt from taxation under Section 501(c) of Title 26 of the United States Code. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)(2). 2 Likewise, the ADA exempts from its coverage a “bona fide private membership club” that is exempt from taxation under Section 501(c) of Title 26. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(B)(ii). 3

It is undisputed that Defendant is a tax exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26. The issue for determination therefore is whether Defendant is a “bona fide private membership club” under Title VII and the ADA.

Although the Court has been unable to locate any federal appellate precedent deciding whether a Girl Scouts organization is a “bona fide private membership club,” the Court finds that at least one Circuit Court has held that the Boy Scouts constituted a bona fide private club for purposes of exemption from Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America, 993 F.2d 1267 (7th Cir.1993). 4 In Welsh, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit noted that four factors “strongly support the conclusion that the Boy Scouts indeed is a private club entitled to exception from Title II.” Welsh, 993 F.2d at 1277.

The four factors found by the court in Welsh to support its finding that the Boy Scouts organization was a “private club” for Title II purposes were selectivity in membership, historically unique existence, distinct purpose, and non-profit status. The Seventh Circuit’s application of those factors to the Boy Scouts is instructive for this Court in its analysis of whether the Defendant in the case sub judice is a “bona fide private membership club.”

First, the court in Welsh found that the Boy Scouts were selective in their membership requirements. Id. at 1276. The court noted that “[a]lthough the Scouts intentionally admit a large number of boys from diverse backgrounds, admission to membership is not without the exercise of sound discretion and judgment. This is evident from the Constitution and By-laws as well as the Boy Scouts Oath and Scout Law.” Id. In particular, the court noted that “the Oath evidences both a plan and *1380 purpose of selectivity.” Id. (emphasis in original).

Second, the court considered the history of the club. Id. at 1277. The court noted that the Scouting Organization was founded in 1907 and has followed the same basic tenets since that time. Id. In this respect, the court noted that the “very purpose of the private club exception is to preserve the right of truly private organizations to maintain their unique existence.” Id.

Third, the court considered the purpose of the organization. The court noted that the purpose of the Scouts is to train young boys to live according to the principles of duty to God, to country, to others, and duty to one’s self. Id.

Finally, the fourth factor considered by the court was the non-profit status of the Boy Scouts. Id.

Applying these four factors to the Boy Scouts, the Seventh Circuit found the Boy Scouts to be a private club. The court rejected the argument that “because the Boy Scouts have five million members, and are open to ‘as many boys as would join’ it is neither selective nor private.” Id. As explained by the court, “Congress did not intend to condition the private club exclusion from Title II -on the popularity of the organization.” Id.; see also E.E.O.C. v. Chicago Club, 86 F.3d 1423, 1435 (7th Cir.1996) (“The size of an organization is not, without more, probative of its privateness.”).

Plaintiff in the case sub judice attempts to distinguish Welsh, which involved the interpretation of Title II, by arguing that the exemption for a bona fide private membership club under Title VII and the ADA should be read in a much more restrictive fashion than the exemption for a private club under Title II. Plaintiffs argument is based on the proposition that the constitutional right to association (as regulated by Title II) is much broader than any right associated with employment practices (as regulated by Title VII and the ADA). 5 While Plaintiffs analysis of the broad constitutional implications of those Acts may be correct, it is inapposite to the question of whether the term “private club” under Title II and the term “private membership club” under Title VII and the ADA have essentially the same meaning. Nothing in the text of either Title II, Title VII or the ADA suggests the broad distinction advocated by Plaintiff.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11506, 82 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,077, 88 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1310, 2002 WL 745777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roman-v-concharty-council-of-girl-scouts-inc-gamd-2002.