Notes

Motel Case Confronted By 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 car, having suitable parking lots available. These motels serve business and leisure travelers and individuals going to meetings and conventions. 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 is found in each 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 a lot of land and there's a common entry/exit door and halls. There are a housekeeping service and a staff including maids and butlers.

The first motel company was set in Mississippi in the early 1960s. The first motels appeared in many southern country as a result 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 across the nation. It established a normal 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 which would stay until such time as it had been renewed. A motel was then 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 limitation on the amount of rooms it could accommodate. It was also authorized to regulate private businesses in the region by posting notices.

Since the motel had all of these rights, the Mobile Manufactured Home Housing Division of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determined 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 coloured and white guests and customers segregated. At that stage, the complaint was still sealed, and there was no final decision as to 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 company that operates in a community with a substantial number of mostly residential areas. There is not any reason why a reasonable person could realize that the motel's practices banned the access of a black person to a white owned and operated motel." He went on to say that the evidence showed that M & H Homes' policy of refusing to provide its services to individuals that are not members of the ownership or management family, and requiring all applicants for membership to undergo a credit check, was in effect a kind of discrimination prohibited by the disparate treatment act. He also found that due to the discriminatory nature of the motel's membership policies, the motel was subjected to a disparate treatment contrary to the equal protection and undue advantage enjoyed by white companies 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 didn't 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 grounds of a'business reason' for excluding African-Americans, that reason does not outweigh the effect of the decision in effectuating a racial exclusion. Accordingly, the case is dismissed.

While the First and Fourteenth Amendments expressly afford protection to African-Americans against racial discrimination in areas of business, the choices in this case don't support the broad proposition that a motel can be sued for racial discrimination solely because one of its motel clients happens to be an African American. This case illustrates a more difficult question is presented when a plaintiff asserts that racial discrimination by a'lodestone motel manager' caused him to be denied service, as opposed to simply being a regular guest. Though we recognize the difficulty of answering questions of racial discrimination, we also realize that it is for an array of reasons that some cases reach the courts. The majority opinion doesn't 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 more difficult, as the facts in this case illustrate the difficulties inherent in determining whether racial discrimination is motivated.
Here's my website: