## Facts

- Little League Baseball, Inc., a national nonprofit, chartered local youth baseball leagues and prescribed uniform rules.
- Little League’s program in New Jersey was limited by rule to boys ages 8–12, categorically excluding girls.
- The National Organization for Women, Essex County Chapter, and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights challenged the exclusion under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), alleging sex discrimination in a place of public accommodation.
- Little League argued the boys-only rule was justified by safety and physiology, asserting girls as a class were more likely to suffer serious injury playing hardball baseball.
- After an administrative hearing with competing expert testimony, the hearing officer found Little League failed to prove girls 8–12 were physiologically incapable, as a class, of playing as safely and successfully as boys.
- The Director of the Division on Civil Rights adopted the findings and ordered Little League and its New Jersey chartered leagues to admit girls ages 8–12.
- Little League appealed, disputing the Division’s authority and contending it was not a covered public accommodation and that any sex restriction was permitted by statute.

## Issues

1. Whether Little League’s organized youth baseball program in New Jersey constituted a “place of public accommodation” under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(f).
2. Whether excluding girls ages 8–12 from Little League baseball violated the LAD’s prohibition on sex discrimination in public accommodations.
3. Whether Little League proved the statutory exception permitting single-sex restrictions where the program is “in its nature reasonably restricted exclusively to individuals of one sex.”

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the Division on Civil Rights’ order requiring admission of girls ages 8–12.
- The court held Little League’s program, as offered to community children under standardized rules through local leagues, fell within the LAD’s public-accommodation coverage.
- The court held the categorical exclusion of girls constituted unlawful sex discrimination under N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(f).
- The court construed the sex-restriction exception narrowly and held Little League did not carry its burden to show the program was reasonably restricted to one sex based on safety or physiological necessity.
- The court upheld the agency’s factual findings as supported by substantial credible evidence and deferred to the agency’s remedial interpretation consistent with the LAD’s purpose.

## Legal Principles

- The LAD’s “place of public accommodation” concept is construed broadly and is not limited to the statute’s illustrative list of examples.
- An organized community program open to the public may qualify as a public accommodation even if it is not a traditional physical venue.
- Sex-based exclusions in public accommodations violate N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(f) unless the defendant proves a statutory exception applies.
- The exception for places “in [their] nature reasonably restricted exclusively to individuals of one sex” is narrowly construed, generally tied to privacy-type concerns, and the party invoking it bears the burden of proof.
- Generalized assumptions about sex or tradition do not justify exclusion; evidence must show that sex-based restriction is reasonably necessary for the program’s nature and operation.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an administrative order requiring Little League programs in New Jersey to admit girls ages 8–12, holding that Little League functioned as a public accommodation under the LAD and that its boys-only rule was unlawful sex discrimination because Little League failed to prove that excluding girls was reasonably necessary to safety or the nature of the program.


National Org. for Women, Essex Cnty. Chapter v. Little League Baseball, Inc., 127 N.J. Super. 522, 318 A.2d 33 (App. Div. 1974)