[net.legal] ERA and bathrooms

wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/11/84)

If this subject has been already beaten to death, please forgive...

Every now and then, in the discussion of the effect of the ERA, it is claimed
(by the opposition, I guess) that having the ERA will mandate "unisex
bathrooms". To me, this seems rather off-the-wall and incomprehensible,
and I wonder if there is any basis in legal reasoning behind such a claim.

1) Currently, are there federal or state laws that mandate the existence
of bathrooms at all (handicapped access regulations, building codes,
occupancy standards, etc.)?

2) If so, are there laws that expressly require that bathrooms be 
designated as being for one or the other sex? Are there laws that then
expressly prohibit members of one sex from entering bathrooms
designated for the use of the opposite sex? (Do these laws apply only to
public buildings, or to any commercial establishment, or to what?)

3) Does the claim about the effect of the ERA rest on the supposition
that any such laws (from #2) would be declared void, because they make a
sex-based distinction between persons?

4) Is this a valid claim?

Will Martin

seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin     or     wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA

mat@hou4b.UUCP (10/14/84)

>	1) Currently, are there federal or state laws that mandate the existence
>	of bathrooms at all (handicapped access regulations, building codes,
>	occupancy standards, etc.)?

You betcha'.  Any decent building code provides for an adaquate number of
sanitary facilities.  Obtaining such things as Certificates of Occupancy
requires that the codes be met.

>	2) If so, are there laws that expressly require that bathrooms be 
>	designated as being for one or the other sex? Are there laws that then
>	expressly prohibit members of one sex from entering bathrooms
>	designated for the use of the opposite sex? (Do these laws apply only to
>	public buildings, or to any commercial establishment, or to what?)

There are such laws at the State and Local levels.  I believe that they are
written to apply to ``public places'' -- in other words anything that is not
a residence with its own facilities.

>	3) Does the claim about the effect of the ERA rest on the supposition
>	that any such laws (from #2) would be declared void, because they make a
>	sex-based distinction between persons?

>	4) Is this a valid claim?

Got me.  'spossibl', I suppose, though I'm much more worred about other
ramifications.  I'm sorry, but I can't put the homosexuality issue out of
my mind.  Look at New York City:  various religious groups like the Salvation
Army and the Roman Catholic Church receive city funds which are used for the
exclusive purpose of housing and feeding the homeless.  Because such groups
will not ``hire'' practicing homosexuals, they shelters (which the city needs
desperately) have had to close.  ERA says nothing about homosexuality?  True.
On the other hand, one of the various Ammendments to our Constitution was
designed to give black people full citizenship.  It was circumvented by various
means for over a decade, but it WAS interpreted by the courts to give much
broader rights, privileges, and protection to CORPORATIONS.  Ammendments should
be simple, but they should also be to the point.
-- 

	from Mole End			Mark Terribile
		(scrape .. dig )	hou4b!mat
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.

garret@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Trisha O Tuama) (10/15/84)

*****

Assuming that there are federal rules regulating male and female
bathrooms, suits to test the law on this issue would ultimately have
to be decided by the courts.  Also assuming that the Supreme Court would
actually grant cert (ie, agree to hear the case) what justice would rule 
in favor of unisex bathrooms?  

Trisha (we have unisex bathrooms in our house) O Tuama

hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (10/16/84)

There are federal regulations regarding handicapped access in "public"
facilities, but not regarding sex separation. Some states and
local governments have such regulations, but these usually only
apply above a certain size. Many small restaurants have only one
bathroom.
The  whole discussion is of course nonsensical. It might as
well be argued that passage of ERA will make it illegal to
sell separate clothing styles for men and women!
Herman Silbiger

faunt@saturn.UUCP (Doug Faunt) (10/18/84)

I recall that in a women's coffe-house that I was familiar with,
there was a requirement for two bathrooms, one of which had
to have a urinal.  It was used as a planter.
This was in Menlo Park, CA.

ajaym@ihu1h.UUCP (Jay Mitchell) (10/20/84)

The point is, if all this ruckus has come out now, before the ERA has even had a
chance to have its way in court, IT IS JUST TO DAMN OPEN ENDED. I am a man and I am
not ignorant. It just seems that an ammendment that gets to the point and trys not
to fight for equality just by using the word "equal" would have a better chance all
the way around - both by more people understanding and voting for it, and in the
legal end by not having the potential for causing so much unnecessary controversy.

This seems to me that people are fighting for themselves rather than fighting for
their issue. What a waste.
-- 
				    -------------------------
					Jay Mitchell
					ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym
				    -------------------------

ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi) (10/24/84)

> *****
> 
> Assuming that there are federal rules regulating male and female
> bathrooms, suits to test the law on this issue would ultimately have
> to be decided by the courts.  Also assuming that the Supreme Court would
> actually grant cert (ie, agree to hear the case) what justice would rule 
> in favor of unisex bathrooms?  
> 
> Trisha (we have unisex bathrooms in our house) O Tuama


Remember that under the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, the
Supreme Court for many years (up until Brown vs. Board of
Education of Topeka, 1956, maybe?) that "separate but equal" was OK,
i.e. that you could have education segregated by race
as long as all races got the same quality education.
This was overturned
on the basis that "separate is inherently unequal".
And this was strictly on constitutuional grounds, not the
result of legislation.
So, presumably the Court might rule under
the ERA (if passed) that unisex bathrooms are required, in the
same way that bathrooms seprepated by race were eventually banned.
Whether the cCourt would or not depends on how they see things.

This may be related to the present legislative situation.
As I recall, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids
discrimination in employment, etc. on the
grounds of race, color, sex, age, or religion, unless
there are "bona fide reasons" for it.
Thus,a producer making a movie of the life of Winston Churchill
would probably be within his rights under the law if he
rejected black actors applying for the lead role, since
maintaining verissimilitude is a valid consideration
in this type of employment.  A manager who only hires 
white engineers would probably not be within his rights.
As I said in a previous posting, this is up to the
courts to decide, what is "reasonable".

Incidentally, there have been cases of thespians crossing
color and sex lines, e.g the woman (forgot her name, sorry)
who earned an Oscar for portraying a man in _The Year
of Living Dangerously_,  or all-black productions of 
Hamlet, or even Charlie Chan (who has always been played
by white actors).

Mike Ciaraldi
ciaraldi@rochesterr
seismo!rochester!ciaraldi