Registered: 6 months, 3 weeks ago
Motel Case Confronted From Mississippi The motel, also known as Motor Hotel, Motor Court, Tourist Court or Motor Inn, was originally a small hotel designed especially for persons traveling by automobile, having suitable parking lots available. These motels serve business and leisure travelers and persons going to conventions and meetings. There are various kinds of motels and some of them are: overall service motel, local/chartered/express motel, chain/branded motel and super discount motel. The rates are usually affordable. A motel can be found in every town or city. There are three forms of motel lodging available in the United States: boarding, self-contained or serviced and live/stay-away motels. Boarding motels are often located on plenty of land and there's a frequent entry/exit door and halls. You will find a housekeeping service and a staff including maids and butlers. The first motel company was founded in Mississippi in the early 1960s. 부산오피 The initial motels appeared in several southern country because of the Jackson Hole Model Act. This was a legislative initiative initiated by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Alexander Hamilton that helped the motel industry throughout the country. It established a standard operating code for all institutions. A motel for the first time became a bona fide business and a bona fide enterprise in its own right, when this act was passed. The motel had to register with the secretary of trade and enter into a registry that would stay until such time as it had been renewed. A motel was subsequently deemed to have full legal rights to market and sell its services. It was approved to set its own rates for room rates and for furnishings and there was no limit on the number of rooms it could adapt. It was also authorized to regulate private companies in the region by posting notices. Because the motel had all these rights, the Mobile Manufactured Home Housing Division of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Decided that it discriminated against African Americans in violation of the Fair Housing Act. On July 13, 1964, the Department of Justice announced that it was going to file a lawsuit against M & H Homes. The complaint alleged that the motel owner had maintained unlawful discrimination by keeping white and colored guests and customers segregated. At that stage, the complaint was still sealed, and there had been no final decision about what form of relief the government would seek. There had been no finding of actual discrimination. On July 7, the United States Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit in Toledo, Ohio affirmed the decision. Writing for the majority, Judge Clawson wrote:"A motel is a business that operates in a community with a considerable number of mostly residential areas. There is no reason why a reasonable person could find that the motel's practices banned the accessibility of a black person to a white owned and operated motel." He went on to say that the evidence revealed that M & H Homes' policy of refusing to supply its services to individuals who are not members of their ownership or management household, and requiring all applicants for membership to undergo a credit report, was in effect a form of discrimination prohibited by the disparate treatment act. He also found that because of the discriminatory nature of the motel's membership policies, the motel was exposed to a disparate treatment contrary to the equal protection and undue advantage enjoyed by white businesses under the disparate treatment act. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the district court's holding. Writing for a divided court, a three-judge panel has held that the motel had indeed established a practice of excluding African Americans from membership or access to its properties, but that the exclusion wasn't based on any discriminatory intent, as required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, the court has found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the matter due to the exclusive power of Congress over the reservation clause of the Fort Apache reservation. Accordingly, the panel vacates the fourth cause of action. The panel further holds that although M & H Homes can be justified on the basis of a'business reason' for excluding African-Americans, that reason does not outweigh the impact of the decision in effectuating a racial exclusion. Accordingly, the case is dismissed. While the First and Fourteenth Amendments expressly afford security to African-Americans against racial discrimination in areas of business, the decisions in this case do not support the broad proposition that a motel can be sued for racial discrimination solely because one of its motel customers happens to be an African American. This case illustrates a harder question is presented when a plaintiff asserts that racial discrimination with a'lodestone motel manager' caused him to be refused service, as opposed to simply being a regular guest. Though we recognize the problem of answering questions of racial discrimination, we also realize that it is for a myriad of reasons that some cases reach the courts. The majority opinion does not reflect any such concern. We concur in the judgment of the court of appeals, but suggest that the court make the inquiries of reasonableness even harder, as the facts in this case illustrate the difficulties inherent in determining whether racial discrimination is motivated.
Topics Started: 0
Replies Created: 0
Forum Role: Participant