National Clothesline

Nine Santa Monica drycleaning and laundry businesses were charged last month with failing to comply with California laws that prohibit pricing based on gender.

A 1996 state law prohibits charging men and women different prices for similar services unless there is a legitimate difference in the time, difficulty or cost of providing the service.

That law was augmented by legislation in 2000 that directs cleaners to post a price list of their 15 most common services and to make available a complete price list on request.

Businesses were cited under both statutes.

Under the 1996 law, businesses can charge more for a similar service if it takes longer or costs more to provide to one sex than to the other, but the law strictly prohibits different pricing for the same services based solely on the gender of the customer. Signs with prescribed anti-discrimination language must be clearly posted in the call office.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, resulted from an information campaign “a couple of years ago to raise awareness of the issue,” according to Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney Adam Radinsky.

He added that “there was no particular complaint that spurred this lawsuit.”

The enforcement action began in February 2007 when the city attorney’s Consumer Protection Unit sent a letter to each of city’s 48 cleaners and 91 hair salons advising them of the price disclosure and posting requirements.

In follow-up inspections in April of last year, none of the 29 randomly selected businesses were fully complying with the law.

Officials from the city attorney's office said they set up a sting operation using a man and a woman visiting each of the city's cleaners. Officials said they found instances in which men were charged less, sometimes as much as several dollars per item. No price lists were offered upon request as the law requires, officials said.

The Consumer Protection Unit sent a second letter reminding the businesses of the law and warning of possible legal consequences if they continued in violation.

Further inspection in October 2007 showed that nine of the violators had still not fully complied with at least one of the key requirements of the two state laws; some of the nine had not complied with any of the requirements, Radinsky said.

A final inspection on May 2 showed that the same nine businesses still lacked the required signage and/or available price lists.

The City Attorney’s Office is seeking an injunction against further violations and monetary penalties.




						California city takes cleaners to court over pricing




	JUNE 2008 This Issue Back Issues Classified Ads Dateline Resources Allied Trades Associations Instruction ABOUT US Home
						Nine Santa Monica drycleaning and laundry businesses were charged last month with failing to comply with California laws that prohibit pricing based on gender. A 1996 state law prohibits charging men and women different prices for similar services unless there is a legitimate difference in the time, difficulty or cost of providing the service. That law was augmented by legislation in 2000 that directs cleaners to post a price list of their 15 most common services and to make available a complete price list on request. Businesses were cited under both statutes. Under the 1996 law, businesses can charge more for a similar service if it takes longer or costs more to provide to one sex than to the other, but the law strictly prohibits different pricing for the same services based solely on the gender of the customer. Signs with prescribed anti-discrimination language must be clearly posted in the call office. The lawsuit, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, resulted from an information campaign “a couple of years ago to raise awareness of the issue,” according to Santa Monica Deputy City Attorney Adam Radinsky. He added that “there was no particular complaint that spurred this lawsuit.” The enforcement action began in February 2007 when the city attorney’s Consumer Protection Unit sent a letter to each of city’s 48 cleaners and 91 hair salons advising them of the price disclosure and posting requirements. In follow-up inspections in April of last year, none of the 29 randomly selected businesses were fully complying with the law. Officials from the city attorney's office said they set up a sting operation using a man and a woman visiting each of the city's cleaners. Officials said they found instances in which men were charged less, sometimes as much as several dollars per item. No price lists were offered upon request as the law requires, officials said. The Consumer Protection Unit sent a second letter reminding the businesses of the law and warning of possible legal consequences if they continued in violation. Further inspection in October 2007 showed that nine of the violators had still not fully complied with at least one of the key requirements of the two state laws; some of the nine had not complied with any of the requirements, Radinsky said. A final inspection on May 2 showed that the same nine businesses still lacked the required signage and/or available price lists. The City Attorney’s Office is seeking an injunction against further violations and monetary penalties.