Oregon: 20-Year-Old Sues Dick’s Sporting Goods for Refusing to Sell Rifle

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
Does he have a case?


From the article:

Watson’s suit alleges that Dick’s policy violates Oregon law against age-based discrimination for people 18 years and older in places of public accommodations. State law includes prohibitions against discrimination in stores that are open to the general public.

In both suits Watson alleges that the defendants, Dick’s and Walmart, not only discriminated but “advertised … unlawful discriminatory policies by issuing a press release, and other materials, stating that [the defendants] will no longer sell any firearms or ammunition to any person under the age of 21.”



http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ues-dicks-sporting-goods-refusing-sell-rifle/


A 20-year-old is suing Dick’s Sporting Goods after being refused a Ruger .22 rifle purchase based on his age.

by AWR Hawkins5 Mar 201821,414

5 Mar, 2018 5 Mar, 2018

The plaintiff, Tyler Watson, claims he faced “Unlawful Age Discrimination.”
Click to expand...
 
I’m not a lawyer, and am not familiar with Oregon law. So here are my guess based on common sense and what I’ve seen from the news.

He probably has a strong case. But given the liberal stance of the courts there his chance of winning are slim. So I’m guessing lots of appeals and then hope the Supreme Court will hear the case.
 
As per the discussion in a concurrent thread, I doubt he'll win his case. Hope he has deep pockets, or a lawyer working pro bono......it's going to be a long haul.
 
Sadly I have to agree with GAF. Oregon is becoming liberal and worse yet has the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that is very liberal and anti-gun. He is looking at 4 -5 years of lower court fights and appeals to the 9th Circuit Court. After exhausting all of appeals there is no guarantee (and seems unlikely at this time) that the U.S. Supreme Court will be interested in it.

Maybe he is a budding law student doing this as a legal college exercise and has professors and lawyers that are willing to guide him through the steps. It will make a dandy paper for his Master Degree and maybe even getting into law school.

Of course the Justices in the Supreme Court are almost certain to change in the next 4 - 5 years so who knows what the Court will be interested in.
 
Last edited:
BSA1 said:
...Oregon is becoming liberal and worse yet has the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that is very liberal and anti-gun. He is looking at 4 -5 years of lower court fights and appeals to the 9th Circuit Court. After exhausting all of appeals there is no guarantee (and seems unlikely at this time) that the U.S. Supreme Court will be interested in it....
Click to expand...

Except this is a state law case and would probably never get to the Ninth Circuit or SCOTUS. As the OP said:
Aim1 said:
....Watson’s suit alleges that Dick’s policy violates Oregon law against age-based discrimination for people 18 years and older in places of public accommodations. State law includes prohibitions against discrimination in stores that are open to the general public.....
Click to expand...

While the article doesn't specify the statutory basis of the suit it appears, after a bit of research, that it is based on ORS 659A.403:
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit:

(a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served;

(b) The enforcement of laws governing the use of marijuana items, as defined in ORS 475B.015 (Definitions for ORS 475B.010 to 475B.395), by persons under 21 years of age and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold; or

(c) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older.​

(3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section.
Click to expand...

The only Oregon case law dealing with discrimination in public accommodations (Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 289 Or App 507 (Or. App., 2017) suggests the law could reach the sale of goods by a retail business.

Oregon law is distinguishable from federal law (42 USC 2000a). Federal law prohibits only discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin, but the Oregon law also specifically includes age as a prohibited basis. It's also not clear from the language of the federal statute that "public accommodation" includes a retail store, but the limited case law in Oregon suggests that for the purposes of the Oregon statute a retail store is a public accommodation.

In this thread I pointed out that in general discrimination by a private business is not unlawful unless it has been explicitly prohibited by statute (or case law). But here we now have a state statute which specifically prohibits discrimination in a public accommodation on the basis of age and state case law which suggests that statute applies in the case of discrimination in the sale of goods by a retail business.

So while Watson's suit might not work under the federal Civil Rights Act, it might have a good basis under Oregon's broader anti-discrimination law.
 
Sistema1927 said:
Couldn't this be a Federal Civil Rights case, just like gay couples and Christian bakers?
Click to expand...

No. The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of age, nor does it necessarily cover the purchase of goods in a retail store, as I outlined in post 10.

The Colorado wedding cake case involves the question of whether the application by a Colorado governmental agency of the Colorado civil rights law to force the baker to provide certain specific decorations on a wedding cake ordered by a gay couple would violate the baker's right to the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment.

See the underlying Colorado court of appeal decision in Craig v.. Masterpiece Cakeshop (Court of Appeals No. 14CA1351) and the petition for certiorari (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission).

Certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court and the docket number 16-111 assigned. It has been argued but not decided. The issue in the case was summarized in the QP Report:
...QUESTION PRESENTED:

Jack Phillips is a cake artist. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that he engaged in sexual orientation discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act ("CADA'') when he declined to design and create a custom cake honoring a same-sex marriage because doing so conflicts with his sincerely held religious beliefs.

The Colorado Court of Appeals found no violation of the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses because it deemed Phillips' speech to be mere conduct compelled by a neutral and generally applicable law. It reached this conclusion despite the artistry of Phillips' cakes and the Commission's exemption of other cake artists who declined to create custom cakes based on their message. This analysis (1) flouts this Court's controlling precedent, (2) conflicts with Ninth and Eleventh Circuit decisions regarding the free speech protection of art, (3) deepens an existing conflict between the Second, Third, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits as to the proper test for identifying expressive conduct, and (4) conflicts with free exercise rulings by the Third, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits.

The question presented is:

Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment....
Click to expand...

And the Oregon wedding cake case (Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus.) cited in post 10 was also a state law case. It hasn't been appealed as far as I know.

Remember that whenever discussing legal issues details matter. Not all civil rights or non discrimination cases are the same.
 
I'm not able to search Case law very well. Has the Oregon age discrimination law been tested in the Car Rental industry? Avis won't rent to drivers under 21 (exceptions to military, etc) https://www.avis.com/en/locations/us/or/portland/pdx. They also put restrictions & charge more for 21-24.
This industry's comparison is more in line with Dick's policy as it just has to do with age. Does Avis need to prove they have problems with under 21?
 
He probably has a case, but I hate stuff like this. Move on and buy from someone else. Let your wallet do the talking.
This kid is no different than the gay couple and that whole wedding cake thing.

I support a private business not selling him a gun simply because they don't like his face. I support the right to refuse service for any reason.
 
dictionary def
of age, Law.
being any of several ages, usually 21 or 18, at which certain legal rights, as voting or marriage, are acquired. being old enough for full legal rights and responsibilities.
 
Bigmike79 said:
He probably has a case, but I hate stuff like this. Move on and buy from someone else. Let your wallet do the talking.
This kid is no different than the gay couple and that whole wedding cake thing.

I support a private business not selling him a gun simply because they don't like his face. I support the right to refuse service for any reason.
Click to expand...

I do as well. It is strange that so many "conservatives" are willing to have government force private business operators into transactions they do not want to carry out. Next thing you know someone will be suing Chick-fil-A for being closed on Sundays.
 
dictionary def
of age, Law.
being any of several ages, usually 21 or 18, at which certain legal rights, as voting or marriage, are acquired. being old enough for full legal rights and responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Does it seems that "of age" is defined by the State based on different legal rights. One for voting, a different one for marriage and another one for guns??
 
He may have a strong case, but Dicks may also have a strong defense.
I can see Dicks using a defense saying its not meant to be age discrimination but that its based on a financial decision. Gun sales are a X% of its business, of that sales to 18-20 are a smaller Y%. Z% of all incidents occur in the 18-20 age bracket. If they legally sell a firearm to just 1 person who causes a incident; media backlash will cause a estimated "M" millions in retail sales & stocks prices.

The other thought was along the lines of -- ATF encourages FFL discretion in not completing sale to someone who passes NICS--but can't complete the thought.
 
rfscjeep said:
...Dicks may also have a strong defense.
I can see Dicks using a defense saying its not meant to be age discrimination but that its based on a financial decision. Gun sales are a X% of its business, of that sales to 18-20 are a smaller Y%. Z% of all incidents occur in the 18-20 age bracket....
Click to expand...

Why would that be a strong defense to a complaint of age discrimination under the Oregon statute? Cite some legal authority supporting your contention. In general "good business sense" is not a defense to unlawful discrimination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Why buying a rifle/pistol at 18 should be legal: 15-Year-Old Fatally Shoots Man Choking Her Mother
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
George P
George P
Q
  • Locked
Sniper victim families sue gun maker, retailer
Replies
1
Views
380
modifiedbrowning
M
T
  • Locked
Oregon lawyer cleared in suspected terrorist case
Replies
0
Views
267
trooper
T
R
  • Locked
The aftermath of 92-year-old Kathyrn Johnston's death
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Clipper
C
C
  • Locked
New Jersey: "Cops attack gun availability, yet recycle own weapons"
Replies
11
Views
1K
Sergeant Bob
S
Back
Top