Gunther

I. LEGAL BACKGROUND LEADING TO THIS CASE

In 1991—and the year is important as we shall later explain—our Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 805 P.2d 873 ] (Harris), which, among other things, judicially construed the triggering language of section 52 of the Civil Code. Strictly speaking, section 52 is not part of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which by its terms refers only to section 51 of the Civil Code (Gatto v. County of Sonoma (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 744, 757 [ 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 550 ] [“By its own terms, the Unruh Civil Rights Act comprises only section 51.”]), though it provides for certain remedies for discrimination in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

According to the state Supreme Court, the language in section 52 “reveals a desire to punish intentional and morally offensive conduct.” (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1172 .) The Harris court thus rejected an interpretation of section 52* that would have applied section 52 to a policy of landlords (requiring minimum incomes of three times a month’s rent) that assertedly had a disparate impact on women, even though the…