## Facts

- The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim held a Mother’s Day home game on May 8, 2005, featuring a free tote bag giveaway intended to honor mothers attending.
- Because checking who was a mother was impractical at stadium entry, the Angels distributed tote bags to “females 18 years old and over,” and also to some nonqualifying groups (e.g., certain male boosters, ticket holders, media, and employees).
- Michael Cohn attended with two male friends, asked for tote bags, was refused twice, and left shortly after.
- After Cohn’s counsel complained by letter, the Angels mailed four tote bags (for Cohn, his counsel, and his friends).
- Cohn sued the Angels and tote-bag sponsor Corinthian Colleges, Inc. under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51, 52), alleging gender discrimination.
- The trial court denied demurrers but granted summary judgment for both defendants; Cohn appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether distributing promotional tote bags primarily to women at a Mother’s Day event constituted intentional, arbitrary, or invidious gender discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
2. Whether Cohn showed a cognizable Unruh Act injury where he later received a tote bag and alleged only emotional upset from the initial refusal.
3. Whether Corinthian, as sponsor without responsibility for designing or implementing distribution, could be liable as a business establishment that denied equal accommodations or privileges.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the Angels and Corinthian.
- The tote bag promotion, viewed in context, was not the type of intentional, arbitrary, or invidious discrimination the Unruh Act targets.
- Cohn failed to show a cognizable statutory injury; receiving the tote bag later left, at most, hurt feelings and anger rather than denial of meaningful access to services or privileges.
- Corinthian was not liable on the record because sponsorship alone, without control over the giveaway’s design or execution, did not establish discriminatory conduct by Corinthian.

## Legal Principles

- The Unruh Civil Rights Act addresses intentional discrimination that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or invidious, and it is aimed at real discriminatory harms rather than minimal or contrived injuries.
- A plaintiff must show denial of “accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services” of a business establishment and a cognizable injury tied to the statutory violation.
- Context matters in evaluating whether differential treatment is “arbitrary” or “invidious,” including the nature of the event, the purpose of the promotion, and the practicalities of administration.
- A sponsor’s liability under the Unruh Act requires evidence tying the sponsor to the discriminatory policy or its implementation; mere sponsorship without control is insufficient to create a triable issue.

## Conclusion

The court held that a one-time Mother’s Day promotional giveaway that primarily favored women, administered for practical reasons, did not amount to actionable Unruh Act discrimination, and Cohn’s claimed harm—after receiving a tote bag—did not constitute a cognizable statutory injury; the sponsor was not liable absent evidence of control or participation in the distribution decision.


Cohn v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 169 Cal. App. 4th 523, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 401 (Ct. App. 2008)