MT Nice Ski Resort Attorneys
For a long time, plaintiffs’ and businesses’ attorneys have fought a long-standing battle with Mt. Pleasant ski resort. Between the turn of the millennium and today, Mt. Pleasant has fallen to the grasp of Business Creationorneys and there is a great deal at stake for both sides of this battle.
A couple decades ago Mt. Pleasant Ski Resort operated under a code that prevented owners from discriminating against African American, Jewish, and Catholic customers.
In 2021, however, the mountain resort changed its non-discrimination policy and began allowing gay customers and guests to attend any of its ski resorts. Soon after this policy change, the plaintiff’s attorneys were notified by Mt. Pleasant that they would be filing a lawsuit challenging this policy change.
While no one disputes the fact that Mt. Pleasant Ski Resort discriminated against the plaintiffs’ class, there are also issues concerning the way in which this policy was changed.
Business creation attorneys contend that it was an unfair and unwarranted change, especially because of the inherent risks inherent in operating a ski resort. Additionally, many of the same arguments that are raised by plaintiffs’ attorneys can be raised by owners of other types of businesses. Indeed, businesses of all sizes may be targeted for changing their rules as long as they are not doing so arbitrarily or in a discriminatory manner.
As previously stated, Mt. Pleasant Ski Resort, LLC is the owner of the ski resort and a member of the National Association of Professional Building Contractors (NAPCC) and the World Association of Home Builders (WHA).
Because of these memberships, NAPCC and WHA feel that Mt. Pleasant Ski Resort is guilty of anti-discrimination because it adopted a policy in 2021 that banned African Americans, Catholics, and those who held religious beliefs against people of those three religions from using its ski facilities. Because of the potential for a backlash, Mt. Pleasant Ski Resort sought to modify this policy, which was ultimately rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs argue that the policy was only a rule, but not a mandate.
This may be true, but that does not mean that the denial of access to the ski resort’s facilities was arbitrary. Rather, it appears that plaintiffs were singled out for punishment rather than on the basis of their ability to pay. It is also important to note that the denial of access to the resort’s facilities did not arise from some discriminatory intent on the part of the management. Instead, the defendants’ actions arose from the impact of the 2021 decision on the ski resort’s revenue stream. In this regard, attorneys handling the Mt. Pleasant Ski Resort case should ask the questions in the appropriate manner so as to determine whether the denial of access was based on a discriminatory motive.
In reviewing the facts in this case, attorneys will need to determine whether plaintiffs had actually been denied equal access to the ski resort or whether the denial was based on some other more fundamental basis.
For example, did the denial of access arise because plaintiffs failed to properly document and file their required forms? If plaintiffs could not adequately describe the necessary forms, chances are that they were denied access even if they actually met the minimal requirements. Also, did the denial of access result from an impermissible motive such as the desire to reduce the amount of snow that the ski resort could shed? If so, then the resulting action may well be discriminatory. Finally, if plaintiffs provided the required notice that they intended to sue and did not receive permission or notice from the ski resort to do so, then it may be seen as an improper motive.
At this point, attorneys must make a distinction between regulating a business, which involves issuing rules and regulations for the operation of its business and treating employees as the customers who are the subject matter of the business law.
For purposes of this article, attorneys may distinguish the latter from the former by focusing on the idea that plaintiffs have a right to bring a lawsuit against the MT Nice Ski Resort (or any other business). Because it is unlikely that attorneys will be able to distinguish the latter from the former in every case, however, it is important to understand the difference between the two cases so that judges may apply different legal standards to each of them. In addition, such a discussion may provide important information about why employees of a ski resort might be more likely to succeed in their claims than would customers or shareholders.
In most instances, there simply is no need for a plaintiff to pursue this type of case unless he or she believes that the resort has intentionally or negligently discriminated against him or her.
Although the majority of litigants who bring lawsuits challenging employment practices may ultimately receive some form of settlement, the litigation process can be expensive and may therefore be pursued only after consultation with an attorney. There may also be significant time restraints associated with filing such a case. If the client cannot hire an attorney promptly, he or she may lose an opportunity to present the appropriate case to a court. Because of these considerations, attorneys advise clients to seek consultation with a MT Nice Ski Resort attorney as soon as possible.
