The Dodgers continue to offer gender-specific promotions, such as a June 18 "Father's Day Catch" on the field and a July 29 Smashbox Cosmetics giveaway, but have not been sued by Rava -- perhaps because team officials say moms won't be kept off the field and men can, if they wish, try to snare some lipstick.
Word of the MLB lawsuits -- which sparked intense discussion on sports talk radio -- didn't surprise some who previously had been sued by Rava.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Friday May 19, 2006 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 2 inches; 77 words Type of Material: Correction
Baseball promotions: An article in Tuesday's Sports section about the legality of some promotions sponsored by professional baseball teams incorrectly stated that Alfred Rava sued the nonprofit City Ballet of San Diego. The attorney sued Spreckels Theater and Theatrical Enterprises Inc., which own the venue where the ballet performs. The article also said that Rava reached an out-of-court settlement in a discrimination lawsuit involving several San Diego-area bar owners. The settlement was reached during the court proceeding.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Saturday June 03, 2006 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 1 inches; 36 words Type of Material: Correction
Baseball promotions: A May 16 article in the Sports section incorrectly stated that attorney Alfred Rava received $125,000 from a settlement to a legal action. The settlement was awarded, but not entirely paid, to several plaintiffs.
Orange County bar owner Carl Leslie's first thought after hearing of the Angels lawsuit was, "Could this be the same guy who came after me?" Leslie settled a 2004 lawsuit brought by Rava over a "ladies night" promotion at his bar rather than wage an expensive court battle.
Rava has reached several out-of-court settlements, including a 2003 agreement in which seven San Diego bar owners paid him $125,000. He's also lost some court cases.
Evelyn F. Heidelburg, an attorney who successfully defended San Diego's City Ballet organization against a 2005 lawsuit filed by Rava, suggested that the attorney seems to be carving out "a little niche" in the legal world.
Rava had sued the nonprofit group for offering cheap tickets designed to attract young families that generally don't attend ballet performances.
"In my view, he's abusing the Unruh Act," Heidelburg said. "I was glad to be able to stop him down here."
In interviews and e-mails, Rava referred to the big league giveaways as "sex discrimination on steroids" and compared them to "having an Easter Day promotion and giving chocolate Easter bunnies to everybody except Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims."
The Unruh Act offers consumers protection against arbitrary or intentional discrimination, said USC law professor David B. Cruz. The act prohibits businesses from linking their pricing to a customer's race, sex or marital status. For example, the California Supreme Court upheld a ruling that found a car wash operator guilty of discrimination for offering women cheaper rates than men could get.
The act doesn't specifically address giveaways, Cruz said, so a court eventually would have to determine whether a gender-specific offer of a tote bag or a hat represents an illegal business practice.
The court also would have to determine if male fans who didn't get a hat or tote qualified for damages -- a not insignificant matter given Rava's claim that the baseball teams and their corporate sponsors should be on the hook for tens of millions in damages.
