1 BOYS NIGHT IN WITH ANDREW DICE CLAY

2 NO GIRLS ALLOWED
3
2. Yet, as seen in the below excerpt from Exhibit 1 to this Complaint, an advertisement for
4
Defendants’ “GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED” comedy show, Defendants,
5
had no problem with organizing, hosting, employing, booking, performing in, or at least aiding a
6
comedy show on November 13, 2017 at Hollywood’ Coronet Theater (“Theater,” and also known as
7
Largo at the Coronet) that boldly promised or threatened that it would not allow male theatergoers into
8
its the show by giving the show the following exclusive title:
9
GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA
10
NO BOYS ALLOWED
11
12 3. Plaintiff Lawrence Pollister, a gay man, a feminist, and a big fan and follower of Iliza
13 Shlesinger, was very excited about going to the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS
14 ALLOWED show on November 13, 2017. So, Mr. Pollister purchased two tickets online for him and
15 a girlfriend to see this show. Unfortunately, when Mr. Pollister and his girlfriend walked up to the
16 Theater’s will-call window to claim their tickets, a Theater employee told them that while Mr.
17 Pollister’s girlfriend was allowed to attend the show, Mr. Pollister was not because of his sex. Mr.
18 Pollister was crushed.
19 4. Mr. Pollister’s girlfriend was shocked and angry that she was allowed to enter the Theater, but
20 that Mr. Pollister was not solely because of their gender difference. In doing so, Defendants denied
21 Mr. Pollister, his girlfriend, all other male and female Theater patrons and thwarted Theater patrons
22 full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services based on the patrons’
23 gender, which, unsurprisingly, is prohibited by a host of California anti-discrimination laws. Mr.
24 Pollister and his girlfriend left the theater after being denied full and equal accommodations,
25 advantages, facilities, privileges, or services based on their gender.
26 5. With so many stories in the news about all the current and past the sexual harassment and
27 discrimination in the entertainment industry and especially in Hollywood, Mr. Pollister thought it was
28 disgraceful that a female comedian who touts her feminist credentials would reinforce the

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 entertainment industry’s sickening sexual behavior and its aversity to diversity by discriminating
2 against men, especially a gay man and a feminist such as Mr. Pollister. Mr. Pollister thought a comedy
3 performance by a female comedian whom he greatly admired, at a Hollywood theater, was one place
4 where he could escape the sexual discrimination members of the LGBTQ community often
5 experience. Mr. Pollister is a feminist who supports women in every way imaginable. But Defendants
6 discriminated against Mr. Pollister that night for no other reason than being a man, by a feminist
7 comedian and others whom he thought were his allies.
8 6. Mr. Pollister was so upset about what happened to him that evening that he had trouble falling
9 asleep, so several hours later, after midnight on November 14th, he drafted a long email and sent it to
10 the Theater, at largonews@gmail.com, voicing his displeasure and disgust with how he was
11 discriminated against when the Theater refused to allow him to attend the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH
12 ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show because of his sex. Later that afternoon, the Theater sent Mr.
13 Pollister the following curt reply, labeling what happened to Mr. Pollister as mere “confusion”:
14 Hey,
15 Your tickets are being refunded thru ticketfly. Sorry for the confusion.
16 - Largo
17 The email exchange between Mr. Pollister and the Theater is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
18 7. Defendants similarly treated unequally or discriminated against other men and women for the
19 same show. On November 13, 2017, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, George St. George
20 was and is a male. Before attempting to attend Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO
21 BOYS ALLOWED show, Mr. St. George had obtained a $30 ticket for the show through the
22 www.largo-la.com website.
23 8. Then, on November 13, 2017, well before the show was scheduled to start at 8:00 p.m., Mr. St.
24 George, along with a male friend who also obtained a $30 ticket for Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN
25 WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, appeared very early at the Theater’s will-call window
26 to get their tickets by showing their proofs of purchase of their tickets through the above website to a
27 female Theater employee. Upon showing the will-call window’s female employee their proofs of
28 purchase, this Theater employee paused for some time, and then told Mr. St. George and his male

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 friend that the Theater would admit them to the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS
2 ALLOWED show despite the fact that they were males, but that both men would have to sit in the
3 back row of the Theater for the entire show because of their sex.
4 9. The two men walked away from the will-call window with their tickets after this Theater
5 employee told them they would have to sit in the back of the Theater solely because of their sex. At
6 this time, the Theater was not yet allowing ticketholders inside the Theater, for which the seating was
7 first come first served, so the two men went to a nearby restaurant to get a quick bite to eat. Mr. St.
8 George and his male friend soon returned to the Theater where they were two of the first would-be
9 patrons in line to enter the Theater, which they were not allowed to do because of what happened next,
10 which perhaps can best be described as being akin to the Montgomery City Lines bus company in
11 Montgomery, Alabama circa 1955 morphing with the Woolworth’s department store lunch counter in
12 Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960.
13 10. As Mr. St. George and his male friend were in the beginning of the line with their tickets to
14 enter and sit in the back of the Theater as earlier ordered, the same female Theater employee who was
15 working at the will-call window earlier, now approached Mr. St. George and his male friend. This
16 female Theater employee told Mr. St. George and his male friend that since she last spoke to them and
17 told them that they would have to sit in the back of the Theater, that “Iliza” and the Theater had decided
18 to not allow Mr. St. George and his male friend to even enter the Theater because only females were
19 being allowed to see the show – just as promised or threatened by the show’s ad. This same Theater
20 employee told the two men the Theater would refund them the money for their tickets.
21 11. What happened to Mr. Pollister, Mr. St. George, and to Mr. St. George’s male friend, is
22 consistent with what happened to yet another man who was denied entry to the GIRLS NIGHT IN
23 WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show because of his sex. This can be seen in Exhibit 2 to the
24 Complaint, in a comment by a male visitor to Defendant Iliza Shlesinger’s Facebook page on which
25 Ms. Shlesinger announced her GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show. Page
26 2 of Exhibit 3 shows this comment was made at 7:52 p.m. on the evening of the November 13, 2017,
27 show by a Mr. Morgan King, who wrote “Hey ILIZA! Can I just grab a pic with you? Huge fan but
28 got turned away for being a dude! I get it! But was hoping to meet you real quick and snap a pic as a

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 constellation prize!”
2 12. In addition, a representative for Ms. Shlesinger has said that another man was not allowed
3 into the Theater for the No Boys Allowed stand-up comedy routine because of his sex, and that this
4 man was able to take a selfie photo with Ms. Shlesinger. This man, unlike Morgan King, apparently
5 got his consolation prize after being prohibited from entering the Theater because of his sex.
6 13. Despite the many State of California anti-discrimination statutes, California Supreme Court
7 opinions, California Attorney General and Department of Fair Employment and Housing actions, and
8 California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control regulations that prohibit California businesses
9 from treating patrons unequally based on their sex, and specifically condemn and forbid events or
10 promotions that treat female and male patrons unequally, Defendants boldly organized, hosted,
11 employed, booked, performed in or at least aided a comedy show that treated male and female
12 theatergoers unequally based solely on their sex.
13 14. As a result of Defendants’ unequal treatment of patrons based on their sex, Defendants denied
14 consumers the full equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services they are
15 entitled to under Civil Code sections 51 (the codification of the Unruh Civil Rights Act) and 51.5, as
16 well as under Business & Professions Code section 125.6. Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH
17 ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show violated California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex
18 discrimination that is reflected in the many California statutes that prohibit businesses from treating
19 consumers unequally based on their sex. The GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS
20 ALLOWED show violated California Civil Code sections 51, 51.5, and 52, which prohibit California
21 businesses and individuals from treating patrons unequally based on their sex, and also prohibit
22 California businesses and individuals from aiding in the discrimination or unequal treatment of
23 consumers based on their sex.
24 15. For any business or any individual in the progressive state of California, to provide unequal
25 accommodations, advantages, privileges, or services to consumers based on their sex like Defendants
26 did here, is as repugnant and unlawful as a business being involved in a “White Night – No People of
27 Color Allowed” or a “Heterosexual Night – No Gays or Lesbians Allowed” and unequally providing
28 admission, entertainment, and other accommodations, advantages, privileges, or services to patrons

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 based on their race or sexual orientation. Simply put, it is against many California laws for a business
2 to treat patrons unequally based on their sex or other personal characteristics, such as race or sexual
3 orientation, which should surprise no one.
4 16. The seminal California Supreme Court case on businesses that treat male and female
5 consumers unequally based on their sex, Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, held that
6 Ladies’ Day and Ladies’ Night promotions that treated patrons unequally based on their sex by
7 charging male patrons and female patrons different prices for the same exact thing violated the Unruh
8 Civil Rights Act. Koire found “Public policy in California strongly supports eradication of
9 discrimination based on sex. The Unruh Act expressly prohibits sex discrimination by business
10 enterprises.” Id. at 37.
11 17. Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show repudiated
12 hundreds of years of women’s struggles to be viewed as being equal to men and is typical of old-
13 fashioned sexism that might also advise a young woman that her best chance for a happy life is to ace
14 her home economics class and learn how to make a queso dip from Velveeta to catch a good man. Not
15 only has the California Supreme Court unanimously expressed its disapproval of how Ladies’ Day
16 and Ladies’ Night promotions harm women, the United States Supreme Court has similarly weighed
17 in as well about "romantic paternalism" directed at women. In Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677
18 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the military must provide its female members with the same
19 housing and medical benefits as it provides its male members. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote
20 that the military’s unequal treatment of men and women is yet another example of one of those types
21 of traditional sex discrimination that ostensibly appears to benefit women, but is “rationalized by an
22 attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’ which, in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a
23 cage.” Id. at p. 684.
24 18. Furthermore, a Theater representative said in part that the reason men were denied entry into
25 the Theater for the No Boys Allowed stand-up comedy routine was “to foster a safe space for women.”

26 Apparently, the Theater believes all women are delicate snowflakes, similar to how women were

27 viewed as fragile waifs during the Victorian era, such that women in the audience for an Iliza

28 Shlesinger’s stand-up comedy routine might need access to fainting couches should they come down

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 with the vapors – or worse – if men are in the audience and making it an unsafe space for women.
2 19. The Theater apparently believes that all men, men such as the Theater’s own Mark Flanagan,
3 Defendant United Talent Agency’s CEO Jeremy Zimmer and its attorney Jesse Kaplan, Defendant
4 Iliza Shlesinger’s attorney Larry Stein, Plaintiff’s attorney Alfred Rava, thwarted theatergoers
5 Lawrence Pollister, George St. George, Mr. St. George’s friend, Morgan King, and all of the male
6 judges and justices on California’s superior and appellate courts are a danger to women such that any
7 one of these men’s mere presence in an otherwise “safe space” for women would immediately turn
8 that area, such as inside the Coronet Theater, into an unsafe space for women. Plaintiff Lawrence
9 Pollister, fellow thwarted theatergoers George St. George and his friend, and their counsel fervently
10 disagree with the Theater’s absurd and harmful stereotypes about women and men.
11 20. Accordingly, the below Prayer for Relief asks the court for an order providing equitable and
12 injunctive relief requiring Defendants to provide their management and employees with training about
13 increasing gender diversity and ending sex discrimination and harmful sexual stereotypes in the
14 entertainment industry, which is sorely needed.
15 21. Despite what happened to Mr. Pollister and other male members of the general public who
16 were prohibited from attending the NO BOYS ALLOWED show, the Theater’s “safe space” theory
17 for prohibiting men from entering the Theater for the show falls flat because it turns out that some
18 men were inside the Theater and in the audience throughout Ms. Shlesinger’s stand-up comedy
19 routine.
20 22. Plaintiff brings this putative class action on behalf of all men and women who were affected
21 by the gender-exclusive admission into Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS
22 ALLOWED show, because the gender-exclusive, diversity averse admission harmed both sexes. The
23 California Supreme Court went to great lengths in its landmark Koire Ladies’ Night opinion to find
24 that gender-exclusive admission practices for entertainment events are detrimental to both men and
25 women because they reinforce and perpetuate harmful stereotypes as follows:

26 Moreover, differential pricing based on sex may be generally detrimental to both men and
women, because it reinforces harmful stereotypes. (See Babcock et al., Sex Discrimination and
27 the Law (1975) p. 1069; Note, Washington's Equal Rights Amendment and Law Against
28 Discrimination -- The Approval of the Seattle Sonics' "Ladies' Night" (1983) 58 Wash. L. Rev.
465, 473.)

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 Men and women alike suffer from the stereotypes perpetrated by sex-based differential
treatment. (See Kanowitz, "Benign" Sex Discrimination: Its Troubles and Their Cure (1980)
2 31 Hastings L.J. 1379, 1394; Comment, Equal Rights Provisions: The Experience Under State
3 Constitutions (1977) 65 Cal.L. Rev. 1086, 1106-1107.) When the law "emphasizes irrelevant
differences between men and women[,] [it] cannot help influencing the content and the tone of
4 the social, as well as the legal, relations between the sexes. . . . As long as organized legal
systems, at once the most respected and most feared of social institutions, continue to
5 differentiate sharply, in treatment or in words, between men and women on the basis of
6 irrelevant and artificially created distinctions, the likelihood of men and women coming to
regard one another primarily as fellow human beings and only secondarily as representatives
7 of another sex will continue to be remote. When men and women are prevented from
recognizing one another's essential humanity by sexual prejudices, nourished by legal as well
8
as social institutions, society as a whole remains less than it could otherwise become."
9 (Kanowitz, Women and the Law (1969) p. 4.)

10 Whether or not these defendants consciously based their discounts on sex stereotypes, the
practice has traditionally been of that character. For example, in Com., Pa. Liquor Control Bd.
11 v. Dobrinoff (1984) 80 Pa. Cmwlth. 453 [471 A.2d 941], the trial court relied on just such a
stereotype in upholding a tavern's cover charge distinction based on sex. The court suggested
12 that the purpose of the discount was "'chivalry and courtesy to the fair sex.'" (Id., at p. 943.)
13 The appellate court held, however, that a variance in admission charge based "solely upon a
difference in gender, having no legitimate relevance in the circumstances" violated the
14 Pennsylvania Human Relation Act's prohibition against sex discrimination. (Ibid.)
15 Similarly, in striking down the New York Yankees "Ladies' Day" promotion, the New York
State Human Rights Appeal Board observed that "the stereotyped characterizations of a
16 woman's role in society that prevailed at the inception of 'Ladies' Day' in 1876" were outdated
and no longer valid "in a modern technological society where women and men are to be on
17
equal footing as a matter of public policy." (Abosh v. New York Yankees, Inc. (1972) No. CPS-
18 25284, Appeal No. 1194, reprinted in Babcock et al., Sex Discrimination and the Law, supra,
at pp. 1069, 1070.)
19
With all due respect, the Washington Supreme Court also succumbed to sexual stereotyping in
20 upholding the Seattle Supersonics' "Ladies' Night." (MacLean v. First North. Industries of
America, supra, 635 P.2d at p. 684.) The court found that the discount was reasonable because,
21 inter alia, "women do not manifest the same interest in basketball that men do." (Ibid.) n16
22 n16 The court also noted other "[attractions]" offered by the Sonics especially for women,
including "performances by the Seattle Symphony before the game and at half time,
23
women's fashion shows at half time, gifts and souvenirs, and women's hoop shooting at half
24 time." (MacLean, supra, 635 P.2d at p. 685.)

25 This sort of class-based generalization as a justification for differential treatment is precisely

the type of practice prohibited by the Unruh Act. (See O'Connor v. Village Green Owners
26 Assn., supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 794; Marina Point, supra, 30 Cal.3d at pp. 739-740.) "[The]
Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits all forms of stereotypical discrimination." (San Jose Country
27 Club Apartments v. County of Santa Clara (1982) 137 Cal. App. 3d 948, 952 [187 Cal. Rptr.
28 493].) These sex-based discounts impermissibly perpetuate sexual stereotypes.
Koire, pp. 34 – 36.

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1
23. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of the general public because Defendants’ gender-
2
exclusive admission practice contravenes and flies in the face of California’s strong public policy to
3
eradicate sex discrimination that is reflected in the many California statutes that prohibit sex
4
discrimination such as Civil Code sections 51, 51.5, 51.6, and 52, and Business & Professions Code
5
section 125.6. Koire repeatedly recognized the State of California’s strong public policy to eradicate
6
the type of sex discrimination carried out by Defendants, as follows:
7
Public policy in California strongly supports eradication of discrimination based on sex. The
8 Unruh Act expressly prohibits sex discrimination by business enterprises. (§ 51.) The
9 California Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits sex discrimination in employment.
(Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) Numerous other statutes stand as evidence of this strong public
10 policy. (See, e.g., Lab. Code, § 1197.5 [Equal Pay Act]; Ed. Code, § 89757 [prohibiting use of
public funds by university or college for membership or participation in private organizations
11 with discriminatory membership practices].
12
Koire, p. 36.
13 ...
Strong public policy supports application of the Act in this case. The defendants have
14 advanced no convincing argument that this court should carve out a judicial exception for their
15 sex-based price discounts. The straightforward proscription of the Act should be respected

16 Koire, p. 39.
17
24. The Judicial Council of California's jury instructions for violations of Civil Code sections 51,
18
and 51.5, i.e., CACI 3060 and 3061, respectively, reflect the Judicial Council's recognition of the
19
California Supreme Court’s ruling in Koire that sex-based promotions are “per se injurious.” The
20
Directions For Use for CACI 3060 and 3061, recognize that a plaintiff asking for only the statutory
21
damages provided by Civil Code section 52 for violations of section 51 or 51.5, respectively, such as
22
Plaintiff has prayed for in this Complaint, does not have to prove he or she was harmed or that
23
defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm, because harm is presumed.
24
Nevertheless, Mr. Pollister and other male and female patrons and members of the general public were
25
indeed harmed by being denied equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services
26
based on the male and female patrons’ gender.
27
25. Koire was upheld by the California Supreme Court in its most recent opinion on single sex
28
events, Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, wherein the Court unanimously ruled

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 that men who were charged more than women to enter a Los Angeles entertainment venue did not
2 have to first affirmatively assert their right to equal treatment to the offending supper club and be
3 refused in order to have standing for a Civil Code section 51 or 51.5 claim.
4 26. Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show caused
5 discontent, animosity, harm, resentment, or envy among the sexes, constituted arbitrary, unreasonable,
6 and/or invidious discrimination, and contravened California’s historical effort and public policy to
7 eradicate sex discrimination.
8 27. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), the State agency
9 charged with preventing unlawful discrimination in places of public accommodation, has published a
10 brochure specifically addressing the unlawfulness of gender-exclusive entertainment events. This
11 DFEH brochure is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and can also be found at
12 http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/DFEH/Publications/PublicationDocs/UnruhActBrochure.pdf.
13 28. The California Department of Justice and the California Bureau of Gambling Control has
14 similarly expressed their condemnation of gender-exclusive entertainment events, specifically their
15 disapproval of the proliferation of no-men-allowed poker tournaments hosted by California’s licensed
16 card rooms. The California Attorney General and the Bureau of Gambling Control issued a Gambling
17 Establishment Advisory, attached hereto as Exhibit 5, warned card rooms that women-only poker
18 tournaments violated the Unruh Act. The Attorney General warned that it may be unlawful under the
19 Unruh Act to simply advertise tournaments as “ladies only” even if men were in fact admitted. This
20 Advisory can also be found at http://ag.ca.gov/gambling/pdfs/NUM8LOT.pdf.
21 29. By this action, Plaintiff Lawrence Pollister, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
22 situated, and on behalf of the general public and in the interests of the public, seeks redress for
23 Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, which denied male and
24 female members of the general public the equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or
25 services based on the consumers’ gender, which is prohibited by Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5, and

26 by Business and Professions Code section 125.6.

27 30. By this action, Plaintiff Lawrence Pollister does not seek any relief greater than or different

28 from the relief sought for the members of the general public who are similarly situated to him, or of

10

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 the Class (defined below) who are similarly situated to him.
2 31. This action, if successful, will enforce several important rights affecting the public interest,
3 including, but not limited to (a) the public’s interest in its right to be free of sex discrimination, (b) the
4 public’s interest in a person’s right to be treated equally no matter a person’s sex, (c) the public’s
5 interest in advancing California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex discrimination, and (d) the
6 public’s interest in putting a stop to any business policy or practice that reinforces or perpetuates
7 harmful stereotypes generally detrimental to both men and women, such as the stereotype that all
8 women are delicate snowflakes who require a no-men-allowed “safe space” to watch a female
9 comedian’s stand-up comedy routine, or the stereotype that all men are a danger to women such that
10 any man’s mere presence in a theater audience to watch a female comedian’s stand-up comedy along
11 with female audience members makes the theater an unsafe space for women. This action will confer
12 a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, on the general public or on a large class of
13 persons.
14 32. Private enforcement of this Complaint’s causes of action is necessary and places a
15 disproportionate financial burden on the Plaintiff in relation to the Plaintiff’s stake in the matter.
16
17 PARTIES
18 33. Plaintiff Lawrence Pollister is a man, over the age of 21, and a California resident.
19 34. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Iliza Shlesinger is a business
20 establishment and a business acting or working as a self-employed, sole proprietorship stand-up
21 comedian. Iliza Shlesinger has been described or quoted in an Esquire article, with emphasis added,
22 as “taking a stronger feminist stance (don't be scared, gentlemen) . . . I found myself coming up with
23 a lot of the material about being on the side of women. I wanted to talk about feminism in the way that
24 I like to talk about it, which is digestible. It's not excluding men.” A Los Angeles Times article on
25 Ms. Shlesinger reads, again with emphasis added, “She is a nuanced feminist and a comic with the

26 instincts and sensibility to address women's rights while inviting men — who in her humor can be

27 monosyllabic and imposing but are mostly well-meaning if misguided — inside the tent.” The same

28 Los Angeles Times article quoted Ms. Shlesinger saying, with emphasis added, “because women want

11

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 to be treated as equals, and we want feminism to be a thing, but it's really difficult when every woman
2 makes the same point about her vagina, over and over.” However, contrary to these articles, during
3 Ms. Shlesinger’s GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, she excluded men,
4 she did not invite men into the tent, and she did not want women and men to be treated as equals. Ms.
5 Shlesinger treated Plaintiff and other theatergoers unequally based solely on their sex by prohibiting
6 male members of the general public to enter the Theater and take in the entertainment and alcoholic
7 beverages provided during the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and
8 by organizing, hosting, employing, performing in or at least aiding this no-men-allowed event.
9 35. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Flanny Productions, Ltd. is
10 a business establishment and a California corporation registered with the California Secretary of State,
11 doing business as The Coronet Theater, which is a bar and theater at 366 N. La Cienega Boulevard,
12 Los Angeles, California 90048. The Coronet Theater is also known as Largo at the Coronet. Flanny
13 Productions, Ltd. treated Plaintiff and other theatergoers unequally based solely on their sex by
14 prohibiting male members of the general public to enter the Theater and take in the entertainment and
15 alcoholic beverages provided during the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED
16 show, and by organizing, hosting, employing, booking, or at least aiding this no-men-allowed event.
17 36. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Mark Brian Flanagan is a
18 business establishment and a business acting or working as a self-employed, sole proprietorship, and
19 he is registered with the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (“ABC”) as
20 the primary owner ABC License Number 475296, which is a License Type 42 for on-sale beer and
21 wine on public premises with the public premises being The Coronet Theater at 366 N. La Cienega
22 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Mr. Flanagan treated Plaintiff and other theatergoers unequally
23 based solely on their sex by prohibiting male members of the general public to enter the Theater and
24 take in the entertainment and alcoholic beverages provided during the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH
25 ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, and by organizing, hosting, employing, booking, or at least

26 aiding this no-men-allowed event.

27 37. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant United Talent Agency, LLC

28 (“UTA”) is a Delaware limited liability company registered as a limited liability company with the

12

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 California Secretary of State, as a business establishment and doing business as United Talent Agency
2 at 9336 Civic Center Drive in Beverly Hills, California 90210. On information and belief, UTA is an
3 agent for Defendant Iliza Shlesinger, responsible for booking or arranging for professional
4 appearances by Ms. Shlesinger such as her appearance at The Coronet Theater on November 13, 2017
5 for Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show. UTA treated
6 Plaintiff and other theatergoers unequally based solely on their sex by booking or agreeing to arrange
7 Ms. Shlesinger’s appearance at the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show,
8 or by at least aiding the sex-based unequal treatment and sex discrimination associated with this no-
9 men-allowed event. UTA had knowledge before the show that this event was advertised as and was
10 going to be carried out as a gender-exclusive event that was not going to allow men to attend or would
11 otherwise treat theatergoers unequally based on their sex. But for UTA booking the GIRLS NIGHT
12 IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, this show and its attendant unequal treatment of
13 Plaintiff, other theatergoers, and the general public on the basis of their sex would never have occurred.
14 38. The true names and capacities of Does 1 through 50 are unknown to Plaintiff. When their true
15 names and capacities are learned, Plaintiff will amend this complaint accordingly. Plaintiff is informed
16 and believes, and on that basis alleges, each fictitiously named defendant is responsible in some way
17 for the occurrences herein alleged, and those defendants proximately caused Plaintiff and the members
18 of the Class and the general public damages. Each reference in this complaint to “defendant,”
19 “defendants,” or a specifically named defendant refers to all defendants sued under fictitious names.
20 39. Unless otherwise alleged, whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act of
21 “defendant,” “defendants,” or to a specifically named defendant, such allegation shall mean that each
22 defendant acted individually and jointly with the other defendant named in the complaint.
23 40. Unless otherwise alleged, whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act or omission
24 of any corporate or business defendant, such allegation shall mean that such corporation or other
25 business defendant committed or omitted to act as in this complaint through its officers, members,

26 directors, stockholders, employees, agents, and/or representatives while they were acting within the

27 actual or apparent scope of their authority.

28

13

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 41. At all relevant times alleged herein, each defendant has been each the agent, alter-ego,
2 representative, partner, joint venturer, employee, or assistant of the other defendants and has acted
3 within the course and scope of said agency, alter-ego, representation, partnership, or joint venture with
4 the knowledge, notification, authorization, and consent of each of the other defendants.
5
6 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7 42. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Article VI, section
8 10 of the California Constitution because this action is a cause not given by statute to other trial courts,
9 and seeks, among other relief, a permanent injunction. Subject matter jurisdiction is also premised on,
10 inter alia, California Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5, and Business & Professions Code section 125.,6.
11 43. This court has personal jurisdiction over defendants in this action because all
12 defendants do sufficient business in California and have sufficient minimum contacts in California to
13
render the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them by California courts consistent with traditional
14
notions of fair play and substantial justice.
15
44. Venue is proper in this court because the sex discrimination and unequal treatment
16
alleged herein occurred in Los Angeles, California and this is a class action lawsuit.
17
18
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
19
45. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
20
situated, defined as follows:
21
All males and females who were treated unequally based on their sex relating to
22
being prohibited from entering or being allowed to enter The Coronet Theater for
23 the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show on November
13, 2017 (the “Class”).
24
25 46. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained pursuant to Code of Civil
26 Procedure section 382 because:
27 (a) The members of the Class are so numerous it would be impracticable to join them all
28 individually in a single action. The Class is believed to include scores of members. If the court

14

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 determines notice to be necessary or appropriate, members of the Class may be notified of the
2 pendency of this action by mail and/or email, supplemented or substituted by published notice.
3 (b) Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class. These questions
4 predominate over any questions which affect only the individual members of the Class. These common
5 legal and factual questions include:
6 (1) Whether the males and females who were granted or denied admission
7 into The Coronet Theater for the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA –
8 NO BOYS ALLOWED show on November 13, 2017 were denied the
9 full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or
10 services they are entitled to under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which is
11 codified as Civil Code section 51.
12 (2) Whether the males and females who were granted or denied admission
13 into The Coronet Theater for the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA –
14 NO BOYS ALLOWED show on November 13, 2017 were
15
discriminated against based on their sex as prohibited by Civil Code
16
section 51.5.
17
(3) Whether Defendants reinforced or perpetuated harmful stereotypes
18
about men and women because of Defendants’ gender-exclusive
19
admission policy for the GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO
20
BOYS ALLOWED show on November 13, 2017.
21
(4) Whether the males and females who were granted or denied admission
22
into The Coronet Theater on the evening of November 13, 2017, and
23
thereby granted or denied access to the alcoholic beverages sold and
24
served therein, were discriminated against or restricted in relation to
25
the performance of Mark Brian Flanagan and Flanny Productions,
26
Ltd.’s ABC-licensed activity of providing alcoholic beverages to
27
members of the general public on the basis of the sex of the members
28

15

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 of the general public as is proscribed by California Business &
2 Professions Code section 125.6.
3 47. Plaintiff Lawrence Pollister’s claims are typical of the proposed Class’s claims. Like
4 the members of the proposed Class, Mr. Pollister was treated unequally at the Theater on the evening
5 of November 13, 2017 based upon their sex, in violation of California Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5
6 and Business and Professions Code section 125.6. Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class
7
are similarly situated and were similarly treated unequally by the same course of unlawful conduct
8
alleged herein. Because the California Supreme Court in Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d
9
24, 33 found that gender-exclusive entertainment events such as Ladies’ Night events based solely on
10
the customers' sex are per se injurious, harm and causation are presumed for both the Plaintiff and the
11
Class in order to recover the $4,000 statutory damages for each and every offense committed against
12
each and every Class member.
13
48. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class.
14
He is a member of the proposed Class and has no interests adverse to the interests of the proposed
15
Class. Plaintiff is a champion of equal rights for women and men, and an ardent feminist.
16
17 49. Plaintiff Lawrence Pollister is a supporter of California’s strong public policy to

18 eradicate sex discrimination against California consumers by businesses that employ unlawful gender-

19 exclusive entertainment events to increase profits. The proliferation of Ladies’ Day and Ladies’ Night

20 promotions in California is the reason why the California Legislature, during the 2001-2002 legislative

21 session, quadrupled the minimum statutory damages for violations of Civil Code sections 51, 51.5,
22 and 51.6 from $1,000 to $4,000 for each and every offense, in order to stop or deter the businesses
23 that continued to employ those sex-based promotions, and elected to absorb the occasional $1,000
24 statutory damages award as merely a cost of doing business. See Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of
25 Assem. Bill No.587, 2001-2002 Reg. Sess., pp. 6-7. Like these other businesses that years earlier had
26
employed gender-exclusive entertainment events to increase profits, despite all the California statutes
27
and California Supreme Court cases that prohibit such gender-exclusive entertainment events,
28
Defendants treated Plaintiff and other Theater patrons and members of the general public unequally

16

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 on November 13, 2017 solely based on their sex, and Defendants’ unequal treatment of Plaintiff and
2 other members of the Class of the general public provides Plaintiff with a stake in this action and the
3 incentive to prosecute it vigorously for the Class and for the general public.
4 50. Plaintiff has retained experienced and competent counsel who (a) is experienced with
5 prosecuting claims for gender-exclusive entertainment events that ostensibly favor one sex over the
6
other but actually are generally detrimental to both men and women by reinforcing or perpetuating
7
harmful stereotypes, (b) is familiar with and has prosecuted these types of Unruh Act sex
8
discrimination class actions, and (c) intends to pursue this action vigorously. Plaintiff’s attorney
9
represented the prevailing plaintiffs/appellants in the landmark California Supreme Court Ladies’
10
Night case of Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, and has successfully worked
11
with the California Attorney General, Department of Fair Employment and Housing, Department of
12
Alcoholic Beverage Control, Bureau of Gambling Control, the California Legislature, the Governor,
13
the California Judicial Council, and many other State of California agencies and officials in support
14
of California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex discrimination. The Judicial Council of California
15
16 has regularly asked Plaintiff's counsel to comment on the Judicial Council's proposed changes to its

17 CACI jury instructions for violations of the Unruh Act and of similar California anti-discrimination

18 statutes. See, e.g., pages 28 - 29 of the Report to the Judicial Council for business meeting on June

19 22, 2012.

20 51. Plaintiff’s counsel was recently responsible convincing the State Bar of California to
21 change the Bar Foundation’s Diversity Scholarships requirements so that now law school students of
22 all races, nationalities, or colors are eligible for the Bar Foundation’s Diversity Scholarships.
23 Plaintiff’s counsel also again voluntarily consulted with the State Bar of California a few years ago
24 and convinced the Bar to scrap its misguided plans to require members of the State Bar of California
25 who were 50 years of age and older to undergo mental acuity tests and counseling based solely on
26
their age.
27
52. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
28
adjudication of the litigation because individual joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable.

17

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 The damages suffered by each individual member of the Class are relatively small given the expense
2 and burden of individual prosecution of an individual action. Thus, it would be virtually impossible
3 for the members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs done to them. Even if the members of
4 the Class themselves could afford such individual litigation, such litigation would constitute a highly
5 avoidable inefficiency in the administration of justice by the courts. Further, individualized litigation
6
presents the potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments.
7
53. Plus, despite the many California statutes, California Supreme Court opinions, and
8
administrative agency rules and actions that prohibit California businesses from employing gender-
9
exclusive events, many men and women still may not know that gender-exclusive business practices,
10
such as Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show, violate the
11
above anti-discrimination statutes and are subject to the remedies provided by Civil Code section 52.
12
A class action will right the wrongs inflicted on those many theater patrons and members of the general
13
public who have been treated unequally by Defendants solely because of their sex, and who very likely
14
do not even know they have sex discrimination claims against Defendants for being treated unequally
15
16 because of their sex.

17 54. By organizing, hosting, employing, booking, performing in, or at least aiding in these

18 tasks related to its gender-exclusive GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show,

19 Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class and to the members of

20 the general public, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
21 relief with respect to the Class as a whole, and making appropriate class certification under Code of
22 Civil Procedure section 382 and any other relevant provisions of other statutes alleged herein.
23 Furthermore, in communications with Plaintiff’s counsel after Defendants were sued in an earlier-filed
24 sex discrimination lawsuit over this same gender-exclusive GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO
25 BOYS ALLOWED show, Defendants maintained that their above conduct concerning this show does
26
not violate any of California’s anti-discrimination statutes, including those alleged in this Complaint,
27
thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to
28
the Class and the general public, otherwise such conduct it is likely to continue.

18

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Violation of The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51
Denying Members Of The Class And The General Public Full And Equal Admission Into
3 Defendants’ Girls Night In With Iliza – No Boys Allowed Show Based On The Patron’s Sex
4 (Against All Defendants)

5 55. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
6 preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.
7 56. By denying members of the general public full and equal admission into Defendants’
8
GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show to watch the show and to purchase
9
the alcoholic beverages sold inside the Theater, and/or by at least aiding in the unequal treatment of
10
male and female members of the general public regarding access to the show and to the drinks sold
11
inside the Theater – all based solely on the consumers’ sex, Defendants intentionally denied equal
12
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to Plaintiff, the Class, and the general
13
public based on their sex, which (a) is prohibited by the Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified as Civil
14
Code section 51, (b) contravenes California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex discrimination, and
15
(c) harms both men and women by reinforcing and perpetuating harmful stereotypes about both sexes.
16
57. A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct was the sex of Plaintiff, the
17
18 Class, and the general public.

19 58. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiff, the Class, and the general public.

20 59. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff, the Class,

21 and the general public.

22 60. Defendants’ unequal treatment of consumers and members of the general public
23 subjects Defendants to injunctive relief.
24
25
26
27
28

19

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Violation of Civil Code Section 51.5
3 Discriminating In The Admission Of Members Of The Class And Of The General Public Into
Defendants’ Girls Night In With Iliza – No Boys Allowed Show Based On The Patron’s Sex
4 (Against All Defendants)
5
61. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
6
preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.
7
62. By discriminating in the admission of Plaintiff, the Class, and the members of the
8
general public to watch Defendants’ GIRLS NIGHT IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show,
9
10 to purchase alcoholic beverages sold in the Theater, and/or by at least aiding in the discriminatory

11 admission policy, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff, the Class, and the members of the

12 general public based on their sex, which (a) is prohibited by Civil Code section 51.5, (b) contravenes

13 California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex discrimination, and (c) harms both men and women

14 by reinforcing harmful stereotypes about both sexes.

15 63. A substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct was the sex of Plaintiff, the
16 Class, and the general public.
17 64. Defendants’ conduct harmed Plaintiff, the Class, and the general public.
18 65. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff, the Class,
19 and the general public.
20
66. Defendants’ discrimination against members of the general public subjects Defendants
21
to injunctive relief.
22
23
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
24
Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 125.6
25 Discrimination In The Performance Of ABC-Licensed Activity On Basis Of Patrons’ Sex
26 (Against Defendants Mark Brian Flanagan And Flanny Productions, Ltd.)

27 67. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
28 preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.

20

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 68. Defendant Mark Brian Flanagan is the holder of California Department of Alcoholic
2 Beverage Control (“ABC”) License Number 475296, the business establishment doing business as
3 The Coronet Theater, which is also known as Largo At The Coronet. Defendant Flanny Productions,
4 Ltd. is the owner and/or operator of The Coronet Theater, and The Coronet Theater utilizes ABC
5 License Number 475296 to sell alcoholic beverages to its patrons. The Coronet Theater’s use of Mark
6
Brian Flanagan’s ABC License Number 475296 makes The Coronet Theater the alter ego of Flanny
7
Productions Ltd.
8
69. The above-described sex-based admission policy of The Coronet Theater and Mark
9
Brian Flanagan during the evening of November 13, 2017, and the denial of the sale and service of
10
alcoholic beverages to members of the general public who were not allowed to enter The Coronet
11
Theater during the evening of November 13, 2017, constituted a discrimination or restriction in the
12
performance of Mark Brian Flanagan and Flanny Productions, Ltd.’s ABC-licensed activity of
13
providing alcoholic beverages to members of the general public on the basis of the sex of the members
14
of the general public, as proscribed by California Business & Professions Code section 125.6.
15
16 70. Defendants Mark Brian Flanagan and Flanny Productions, Ltd.’s conduct harmed

17 Plaintiff, the Class, and the general public.

18 71. Defendants Mark Brian Flanagan and Flanny Productions, Ltd.’s conduct subjects

19 Defendants Mark Brian Flanagan and Flanny Productions, Ltd. to injunctive relief.

20 FOURTH CAUSE OFACTION

21 Violation Of Business & Professions Code
Sections 17200 Et Seq. — “Unlawful” Conduct
22 (Against All Defendants)
23
72. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
24
preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.
25
73. Defendants’ acts and practices alleged herein constitute “unlawful” conduct within the
26
meaning of Business & Professions Code section 17200 because they violate Civil Code sections 51
27
and 51.5, and Business & Professions Code section 125.6 as alleged herein.
28

21

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 74. Plaintiff, the proposed Class members, and the general public have suffered injury in
2 fact as a result of Defendants’ unfair conduct as alleged herein because Defendants treated Plaintiff,
3 proposed Class members, and the general public unequally based on gender, or because Defendants at
4 least aided in treating the Plaintiff, proposed Class members, and the general public unequally based
5 on their gender. Defendants’ gender-based admissions policy or practice also reinforced and
6
perpetuated harmful stereotypes about men and women.
7
75. Under Business & Professions Code section 17203, Plaintiff and the proposed Class,
8
and the general public seek an order requiring Defendants to disgorge any profits to a public benefit
9
non-profit charity that educates the general public on the harmful effects of sex discrimination and/or
10
of harmful stereotypes about men or women.
11
76. Defendants’ unlawful conduct can easily be repeated. Defendants have maintained that
12
their above conduct regarding the no-men-allowed policy or practice relating to the GIRLS NIGHT
13
IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show did not violate any of California’s anti-
14
discrimination statutes and was not contrary to California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex
15
16 discrimination. Therefore, pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 17203, Plaintiff, on

17 behalf of the proposed Class and members of the general public seeks an order of this Court to enjoin

18 Defendants from engaging in the unlawful business practices alleged herein.

19 77. Plaintiff takes upon himself enforcement of these laws and pursuit of these claims, all

20 of which are in support of California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex discrimination and to put
21 an end to harmful sexual stereotypes that are generally detrimental to both men and women. There is
22 a financial burden involved in pursuing this action, the action is seeking to vindicate several public
23 rights, it supports California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex discrimination, and it would be
24 against the interests of justice to penalize Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class by forcing
25 them to pay attorneys’ fees from the recovery in this action. Plaintiff made a reasonable pre-filing
26
effort to resolve this dispute short of this litigation. Attorneys’ fees are therefore appropriate pursuant
27
to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
28

22

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 FIFTH CAUSE OFACTION
2 Violation Of Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 Et Seq. – “Unfair Conduct”
(Against All Defendants)
3
4 78. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every

5 preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.

6 79. Defendants’ acts and practices alleged herein constitute “unfair” conduct within the
7 meaning of Business & Professions Code section 17200 because they contravene the legislatively-
8 declared public policy against arbitrary, unreasonable, or invidious discrimination on the basis of
9 protected personal characteristics, as reflected in Civil Code sections 51, 51.5, and 52, and Business
10 & Professions Code section 125.6, and California case law interpreting these statutes, and/or because
11 the acts and practices are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and/or substantially injurious
12
to consumers and the general public.
13
80. Plaintiff, the proposed Class members, and the general public have suffered injury in
14
fact as a result of Defendants’ unfair conduct as alleged herein because Defendants treated Plaintiff,
15
proposed Class members, and the general public unequally based on gender, or because Defendants at
16
least aided in treating the Plaintiff, proposed Class members, and the general public unequally based
17
on their gender. Defendants’ gender-based admissions policy or practice also reinforced harmful
18
stereotypes about men and women.
19
81. Under Business & Professions Code section 17203, Plaintiff and the proposed Class,
20
21 and the general public seek an order requiring Defendants to disgorge any profits to a public benefit

22 non-profit charity that educates the general public on the harmful effects of sex discrimination and/or

23 of harmful stereotypes about men or women.

24 82. Defendants’ unlawful conduct can easily be repeated. Defendants have maintained that

25 their above conduct regarding the no-men-allowed policy or practice relating to the GIRLS NIGHT
26 IN WITH ILIZA – NO BOYS ALLOWED show did not violate any of California’s anti-
27 discrimination statutes and was not contrary to California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex
28 discrimination. Therefore, pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 17203, Plaintiff, on behalf

23

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 of the proposed Class and members of the general public seeks an order of this Court to enjoin
2 Defendants from engaging in the unfair business practices alleged herein.
3 83. Plaintiff takes upon himself enforcement of these laws and pursuit of these claims, all
4 of which are in support of California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex discrimination and to put
5 an end to harmful sexual stereotypes that are generally detrimental to both men and women. There is
6
a financial burden involved in pursuing this action, the action is seeking to vindicate several public
7
rights, support California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex discrimination, and it would be against
8
the interests of justice to penalize Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class by forcing them to
9
pay attorneys’ fees from the recovery in this action. Plaintiff made a reasonable pre-filing effort to
10
resolve this dispute short of this litigation. Attorneys’ fees are therefore appropriate pursuant to Code
11
of Civil Procedure section 1021.5.
12
13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
14
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief on behalf of himself and the members
15
of the Class and the general public:
16
1. For an order providing equitable and injunctive relief permanently enjoining
17
18 Defendants from engaging or aiding in the unequal treatment of the general public in violation of Civil

19 Code sections 51 and 51.5, specifically permanently enjoining Defendants from unequally treating or

20 adding the unequal treatment of the general public based on their sex;

21 2. For an order providing equitable and injunctive relief permanently enjoining

22 Defendants from continuing the unlawful and unfair conduct alleged herein, including an order

23 requiring Defendants to enact policies and procedures (a) to ensure that male and female consumers

24 are treated equally, (b) to not reinforce or perpetuate harmful stereotypes that (i) all women are delicate

25 snowflakes who require a no-men-allowed “safe space” to watch a female comedian’s stand-up
26 comedy routine, and/or that (ii) all men are a danger to women such that any man’s mere presence in
27 a theater audience to watch a female comedian’s stand-up comedy makes the theater an unsafe space
28 for women, and (c) Defendants provide their management and employees with training about

24

Class Action Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

EXHIBIT 1
Largo at the Coronet » GIRLS’ NIGHT IN with ILIZA and special guests – Tickets – Largo at the Coronet – Los Angeles, CA – November 13th, 2017

366 N La Cienega Blvd, Los Angeles, CA

(310) 855- 0350
Enter an Artist or Event Search

CALENDAR TICKET INFO LOCATION/CONTACT

VIDEOS PHOTOS PRESS MAILING LIST

GIRLS' NIGHT
IN with ILIZA Sign Up For Our Email List Submit

and special
guests RSVP

Mon, November 13, 2017

Doors: 7:00 pm / Show: 8:00 pm
$30.00 MORE UPCOMING
Tickets SHOWS
Seat assignments begin at 6:00PM, Doors Fri 12/15 - Middleditch and Schwartz
open for drinks at 7:00PM, Showtime at (Thomas Middleditch and Ben
8:00PM | When you arrive at Will Call on Schwartz)
the night of the show, seats will be
assigned first come first served, from the Sat 12/16 - Harry Shearer and Judith
front of the theatre to the back. If you want Owen's Christmas Without Tears
to sit closer, be sure to come earlier. | NO (Does This Tree Make Me Look Fat?)
LATE ENTRY * NO REFUNDS * NO
Sun 12/17 - The BGS Christmas
EXCHANGES * SPECIAL GUESTS ARE
Situation with Ed Helms, The
SUBJECT TO CANCEL WITHOUT
Dustbowl Revival & Friends
NOTICE
Tue 12/19 - Rob Bell Christmas
Show with special guests the band
Share This Event Joseph
Wed 12/20 - Jane Lynch's A Swingin' 
Little Christmas!
Thu 12/21 - The Watkins Family Hour
Like You and 8 others like this.8 people like this. Be the first of your friends.
Holiday Show
Fri 12/22 - Jon Brion
1 Comment Sort by Oldest
Thu 12/28 - Jeff Tweedy
Fri 12/29 - Jeff Tweedy

Add a comment... Fri 1/05 - Tig Has Friends

Sat 1/06 - The Black Version with
special guest Wayne Brady!
Rachel Powell

https://www.largo-la.com/event/1579879-girls-night-in-iliza-special-los-angeles/[12/15/2017 11:56:11 AM]

Largo at the Coronet » GIRLS’ NIGHT IN with ILIZA and special guests – Tickets – Largo at the Coronet – Los Angeles, CA – November 13th, 2017

yes. and thank you. Mon 1/08 - Wild Horses with special
guest Matthew Gray Gubler
Like · Reply · 6w
Tue 1/09 - WOMP It Up! Live with
Facebook Comments Plugin Jessica St. Clair and Lennon Parham
GIRLS' NIGHT IN with ILIZA and special guests with special guests Jason
Iliza is bringing her girls invited only show back to Los Mantzoukas, Brian Huskey and many
Angeles. Girls' Night In is a hybrid stand up show and more from the Wompler Universe!
interactive discussion between Iliza and the women in the
Wed 1/10 - Trae Crowder & Friends
audience aimed at giving women a place to vent in a
supportive, fun and inclusive environment. She invites women Thu 1/11 - Peter Rowan & Ramblin'
of all walks of life to come, laugh with her and at her and be Jack Elliott
ready to share and feel safe for an awesome night of comedy
and love.

A portion of ticket proceeds will be donated to Planned Parenthood.

INSTAGRAM
Iliza will also be meeting fans after the show and signing copies of her new
book, Girl Logic, which hits shelves November 7th. Books will be available for PHOTOS
purchase on site.

Venue Information:
Largo at the Coronet
366 N La Cienega Blvd
Los Angeles, CA, 90048
http://www.largo- la.com

View More →

TWITTER FEED
RT @laurenlapkus: GUYYYS! Our
guest for our next @WildHorsesShow
at @LargoLosAngeles is
@GUBLERNATION!!! January 8 at
8:30! We will have an… about 17
hours ago

RT @BenBlacker: @TheExorcistFOX
@jerslater @Seanecrouch
@bendanielsss @JohnTheCho
@FOXTV @Brianne_Howey
@hkasulka @lijunli @briannahilde
PL… 11:12:22 AM December 14, 2017

RT @deadpilotspod: It's here! The new

episode of @deadpilotspod!
#Jetpackula written by @RobSchrab
starring @pattonoswalt
@ConstanceWu and… 11:11:35 AM
December 14, 2017

RT @WildHorsesShow: If you missed

the live Wild Horses show with
@nickkroll (or just want to relive the
magic), you can hear it now for fre…
11:11:27 AM December 14, 2017

https://www.largo-la.com/event/1579879-girls-night-in-iliza-special-los-angeles/[12/15/2017 11:56:11 AM]

EXHIBIT 2
From: Largo at the Coronet <largonews@gmail.com>
Date: November 14, 2017 at 2:43:33 PM AST
To: Lawrence Pollister <abe.pollister@icloud.com>
Subject: Re: Iliza Slessinger's Sexist & Misandrous Actions

Hey,

Your tickets are being refunded thru ticketfly. Sorry for the confusion.

- Largo

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:36 AM, Lawrence Pollister <abe.pollister@icloud.com> wrote:

My name is Abe I would like to bring attention to an illicit act of discrimination which I experienced this
evening while attempting to attend one of Iliza Snetsinger’s shows in Los Angeles.

As the hosting venue of Iliza’s show, I think you should be aware that by hosting a girls only show in Los
Angeles that she is harboring misandry, sexism, and inequality. Additionally, this illicit act is actionable under
law as evidenced by the Unruh Civil Rights Act of California.

I fell in love with Iliza’s stand up a few weeks ago when I saw her perform at The Comedy Store. I identified
with her comedy about finding a mate in more ways than you can imagine. Her jokes were hilarious and she
literally made me laugh until I cried. I immediately went home and watched all of her Netflix specials. I told
many of my girlfriends that they have to hear this comedian and about how amazing she is.

I started to follow her on social media. She announced new tour dates in Amsterdam and Europe. I went online
to investigate dates as I was very excited to see when I could see her next. I was pleasantly surprised when I
saw she was going to be doing another performance here in Los Angeles. I immediately purchased tickets and
told my girlfriend that we were attending the “Girls Night Out” show for Iliza. I was so excited.

We got to the theater and I was flatly denied entry for no reason other than being a man. This is such a blatant
act of discrimination and is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. As a gay man, I have
always found women to be a safe place from the homophobia that I have experienced my entire life. To
experience discrimination like this was absolutely disheartening and downright disgraceful.

Upon further research, I discovered that this act was not only unconscionable, but clearly illegal. This behavior
is not acceptable. With all of the sexual harassment and discrimination in Hollywood it is disgraceful to think
that a female comedian would reinforce this behavior by discriminating against men.

I am a feminist. I support women in every possible way imaginable. But I was discriminated against tonight for
no reason other than being a man, by a comedian that I thought I could consider an ally.

If women want to be considered equal to men, we should aim to be equal but not separate.

I would appreciate an apology but am more concerned that these types of shows that focus on exclusion will
continue. If Iliza continues to host illegal, discriminatory comedy shows I will do everything in my power to
ensure that the world is aware of her discriminatory behavior.
EXHIBIT 3
(7) Iliza Shlesinger - Home

15K Views

 
Like Show more reactions
  Comment   Share

420 Top Comments

26 Shares
Comments

Write a comment...

Brandon Hill You say limited opportunities but the company I work for just
promoted a woman to president and it’s a male dominated industry and
company. The only thing that limits anyone is their self.
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 10 · November 13 at 3:09pm · Edited

5 Replies

Mike Winklepleck Limited opportunities? This is the problem, telling

girls/woman that they have no chance from the get go. Those who work hard
find opportunities. Or am I allowed to say anything because I'm a guy?
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · 8 · November 13 at 3:32pm

View 23 more comments

Iliza Shlesinger
November 12 at 6:10pm ·

Tomorrow is my ONLY GIRLS ALLOWED show #GirlsNightIn - we are

gonna have @jesswellington2 and @jessdweck share some awesome
stories and then we are gonna have a fun talk about our world, girls.
Very special. Tickets at ILIZA.COM and the show is at 8 at Largo! Don't
delay. Come with an open mind, and open heart and wear something fun!

https://www.facebook.com/IlizaShlesinger/[11/16/2017 8:27:28 AM]

(7) Iliza Shlesinger - Home

 
Like Show more reactions
  Comment   Share

64 Top Comments

Comments

Write a comment...

Morgan King Hey ILIZA! Can I just grab a pic with you? Huge fan but got
turned away for being a dude! I get it! But was hoping to meet you real quick
and snap a pic as a constellation prize!
LikeShow more reactions · Reply · November 13 at 7:52pm · Edited

Bea Cohen I’m so bummed I wasn’t able to get tickets!

LikeShow more reactions · Reply · November 13 at 1:53pm

View 5 more comments

Iliza Shlesinger
November 11 at 12:30pm ·

TONIGHT I AM PLAYING NEW YORK! Iliza.com/tour for

#Repost @comedy_nyc (@get_repost)
・・・
What's good funny followers in NYC!? It's Saturday which is a great night to
go see comedy especially since it's #newyorkcomedyfestival ! DAY 5
features include:...
See More

https://www.facebook.com/IlizaShlesinger/[11/16/2017 8:27:28 AM]

EXHIBIT 4
Protections Under the Law Against Sex
Discrimination
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51),
originally enacted in 1959, was designed to protect
the rights of Californians from arbitrary
discrimination and to guarantee their rights to full
and equal access to all public accommodations
regardless of sex.
Businesses that are Governed by the Filing a Complaint
Unruh Civil Rights Act
The Department of Fair Employment and
Housing ( DFEH or Department) is charged with
The list below includes examples of businesses that
the task of upholding the Unruh Act, and
are covered by the Unruh Act. This list is
ensuring that its laws and principles are not
non-exhaustive, and may include any place of public
violated. If you believe you are a victim of
accommodation regardless of whether the entity is a
unlawful discrimination, do not hesitate to call
traditional business or non-profit entity.
the DFEH and file a complaint following these
steps:

Discrimination by business establishments on the
basis of sex is against the law. It is unlawful for any Bars and Nightclubs.
business that is open to the general public to Restaurants.
discriminate against a patron based on any of the Hotels and Motels.
following classifications: sex, race, color, religion, Retail Shops.
ancestry, national origin, disability, medical Golf Courses.
condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. The Fitness Clubs or Gyms.
Unruh Act protection is not limited to these Theaters.
classifications. It is an Unruh Act violation for a Hospitals.
business to offer special treatment, whether Barber Shops and Beauty Salons.
preferential or detrimental, to one class of patrons Non-Profit Organizations (open to
regardless of the business' motives for doing so. the public).
Public Agencies.
Housing Accommodations.
Contact the DFEH by calling the toll
free number at (800) 884-1684 to
schedule an appointment.
"Be prepared to present specific
facts about the alleged harassment
of discrimination.
"Provide any copies you may have
of documents that support the
charges in the complaint.
Keep records and documents about
the complaint, such as receipts,
stubs, bills, applications, flyers,
witness contact information, and
other materials.

Examples of Sex-Based Discrimination establishment while providing admittance to

Under the Unruh Violations
The following are examples of potential violations of
the Unruh Act. The list is not meant to be
exhaustive, and there is other conduct that may
violate the Act.
Providing free admission, discounts, or
promotional gifts to only one sex.
Charging men and women different prices for
comparable services, such as clothing
alterations, haircuts, dry cleaning, or drinks at a
restaurant or bar.
Maintaining "women only" or "men only" exercise members of the other sex without the same
areas of a fitness club or gym and excluding or level or degree of search.
deterring the opposite sex from those areas.
Promoting a business with "ladies night"
Establishing a "women only" or "men only" business
discounts on admission and services.
establishment which would otherwise be completely
Denying access to a business, such as a
open to the public.
nightclub to a particular sex, or giving
Excluding one sex from a business premises during
preference to one sex over the other.
certain times.
Posting signs or adopting policies for "women
recommended" or "men preferred."
Requiring members of one sex to submit to searches
to gain admittance to a business.
 Complaints must be filed within one year
from the last act of discrimination. The DFEH
will conduct an impartial investigation.
The Department is not an advocate for either
the person complaining or the person
complained against. The Department
represents the state. The DFEH will, if
possible, try to assist both parties to resolve
the complaint. If a voluntary settlement
cannot be reached, and there is sufficient
evidence to establish a violation of the law,
the Department may issue an accusation
and litigate the case before the Fair
Employment and Housing Commission or in
civil court. This law provides for a variety of
remedies that may include the following:
Out-of-pocket expenses.
Cease and desist orders.
Damages for emotional distress.
Statutory damages of three times the
amount of actual damages, or a minimum
of $4,000 for each offense.
For more information, contact the DFEH
Toll Free (800) 884-1684
Sacramento area and out-of-state (916) 227-0551
Videophone for the Deaf (916) 226-5285
E-mail contact.center @dfeh.ca.gov
Web site www.dfeh.ca.gov
Facebook State of California
http://www.facebook.com /#!/pages/Department-of-F DEPARTMENT OF
air-Employment-and-Housing/183801915445
FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
YouTube http://www.youtube.com /califdfeh
Twitter http://twitter.com /DFEH
In accordance with the California Government Code and
Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, this publication
can be made available in Braille, large print, computer disk, or
tape cassette as a disability-related reasonable
accommodation for an individual with a disability. To discuss
how to receive a copy of this publication in an alternative
format, please contact the DFEH at the telephone numbers
and links above.

References 4. Ibister v. Boys' Club of Santa Cruz (1985) 40 Cal.3d

1. California Civil Code section 51.

2. Rotary Club of Duarte v. Board of Directors (1987)
178 Cal.App.3d 1035. A non-profit club was a
business establishment under the Unruh Act because
it offered its members substantial "commercial
advantages and business benefits." Membership in
these kinds of organizations is a privilege or
advantage under the Unruh Act. Thus, termination of
membership based on sex is prohibited.
3. Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club (1995)
10 Cal.4th 594. By offering the public access to its
facilities, the County Club became a business
establishment under the Unruh Act and could not
exclude women.
72. A non-profit activities center for boys was a place of
public accommodation, and excluding an entire class of
patrons, such as women, was illegal.
5. Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th
160. It was a violation of the Unruh Act for a night club to
charge its male patrons a higher price for admission.
The patrons need not affirmatively request
nondiscriminatory treatment, but rather, are entitled to it.
The Unruh Act imposes a compulsory duty upon
business establishments to serve all persons without
arbitrary discrimination.
6. Koire v. Metro Car Wash ( 1985) 40 Cal.3d 24. The
Unruh Act broadly condemns any business
establishment's policy of gender-based price discounts.
Unruh Civil Rights Act
All persons within the jurisdiction of this
state are free and equal, and no matter
what their sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability,
medical condition, marital status, or
sexual orientation are entitled to the full
and equal accommodations, advantages,
facilities, privileges, or services in all
business establishments of every kind
whatsoever.
EXHIBIT 5
 BUREAU OF EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General
GAMBLING Mathew J. Campoy

CONTROL Acting Bureau Chief

NUMBER 8 GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENT ADVISORY January 18, 2008

“LADIES ONLY TOURNAMENTS”

It has come to the attention of the Bureau of Gambling Control that some gambling establishments
conduct “ladies only” poker tournaments that exclude men from participating, or admit them on
different terms from those accorded to women. It is the Bureau’s view that such tournaments may
violate California’s anti-discrimination laws.

Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5), businesses may not
discriminate in admittance, prices, or services offered to customers based on the customers’ sex,
race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual
orientation. “Ladies only” tournaments or any other promotional events that fail to admit men and
women to advertised activities on an equal basis regardless of sex are unlawful. It may also be
unlawful under the Unruh Act to advertise tournaments as “ladies only” even if men are in fact
admitted.

The Bureau will approve only those events that include the following features: the event will be
open to all customers, the promotional gifts will be given equally to all event participants, the fees
and prices will be the same for all event participants, any discounts will not be based on gender or
another personal characteristic protected by the Unruh Act, and the event’s promotional materials do
not advertise gender-based discounts or imply a gender-based entrance policy or any other unlawful
discriminatory practice.

Gambling establishments should take notice that pursuant to Business and Professions Code
section 125.6, violations of the Unruh Act are cause for discipline under the Gambling
Control Act.

For more information regarding this advisory, contact the California Department of Justice, Bureau of
Gambling Control at (916) 263-3408.