CITY OF AUSTIN EQUAL AIR HOUSING OFFICE CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION CHARGE NUMBER: NM (ML, Mrs.) HOME PHONE NUMBER AME STEP HEM CLARK STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE, and ZIP CODE LBANV NY 1220 3 NAMED IS THE RESPONDENT WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME TELEPHONE NUMBER 62t ~702c3 CITY, STATE, and ZIP CODE NANEE ALA V10 DRAWHOMS VIZ. STREET ADIEJRESS 510 e. ST 77 7?26 78'701 b1anlt(s) 5'1" 0 AI MA SEX LIGION NA ORIGIN OTHER (specify) 6&ng (DENT: CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON MY (chec AGE RACE OLOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION DATE OF THE MOST RECENT 0R CONTINUING DISCRIMINATION (day. month, year): 5/24 (a 7 :2:ch 5 Intimid- . The Particulars Are: Pt?ay, 356. +11. best Of my knowledge, information and belief. have rend th above charge and that it is true to th I I swear or af?rm that ignfture Of Charging Party Date SEEscribWhis Representative (day, mo'nth, Sign re'of Rc alive/notary Sub-ed mdSwomtobofmm ?Laura! I I 90. I . 93%? I CHARGE AGAINST ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE RITZ STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS The particulars of the alleged discrimination by Alamo Drafthouse (Drafthouse) at its Ritz location are elaborated as follows: 1. Discriminatory Film Screening. On Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 6:30 pm. and again at 7:00 pm, Drafthouse intends to violate Section and (B) of Austin?s Public Accommodations Ordinance by directly refusing or denying persons certain public accommodations based on sex and/or gender identi?cation. Speci?cally, Drafthouse has pledged, both on its own website and on its Facebook page, 0 &utm_campaign=Marketing (see attachment) - 1 329447453 777473 that it will host commercial, for-pro?t ?lm screenings that are restricted only to people who publicly identify as female. Drafthouse describes each event as a ?women only? or ?al l?female screening.? It expressly elaborates as follows in an advertisement on its website: ?Apologies, gentlemen, but we?re embracing our girl power and saying ?No Guys Allewe for one special night at the Alamo Ritz. And when we say ?People Who Identify As Women we mean it. Everyone working at this screening -- venue staff, proj ectionist, and culinary team -- will be female.? As described, Drafthouse?s screenings will directly deny services to everyone who does not publicly identify as female. The excluded class thus comprises people who publicly identify as men, including transgender men; transgender women who, though self-aware or transitioning, are not yet comfortable identifying publicly as female; and individuals who publicly identify as gender non-binary or ?gender??uid? or who decline to publicly identify with any gender label. Whether Drafthouse would admit any of these individuals if they appear ?in drag? is unclear, but a gender-speci?c requirment of compulsory drag in order to obtain services would also directly discriminate against this class of persons based on sex and/or gender identi?cation. Although the two exclusionary screenings appear to be sold-out events, Drafthouse has proposed, in its own comments to its Facebook post, to offer as many additional such screenings in the future as the market will support and to seek to persuade other Drafthouse af?liates at other locations around the country to offer the same discriminatory accommodations as well. 2. Discriminatory Ticket Sales. From and after May 24, 2017, Drafthouse did violate Section 5- and (B) of Austin?s Public Accommodations Ordinance by directly refusing or denying persons certain public accommodations based on sex and/or gender identi?cation. Speci?cally, Drafthouse operated an online ticket sales system on its website (see attachment) that attempted 1/4 to dissuade and exclude as potential ticket buyers everyone in the class not identifying publicly as female, as described in paragraph 1. 3. Discriminatory Advertising. From May 24, 2017, to the present, on a continuing basis, Drafthouse has violated Section and (C) of Austin?s Public Accommodations Ordinance at least by ?display[ing]? or ?publish[ing]? statements or advertisements that unambiguously state that certain of its public accommodations will be denied to individuals based on sex and/or gender identi?cation, and that the patronage or presence of certain individuals is unwelcome based on sex and/or gender identi?cation. Speci?cally, in a rather cynical corporate effort to exploit the ideal of women?s empowerment for crass pro?t by exploiting it as a means of boosting commercial ticket sales on a slow movie night, Drafthouse posted notices, both on its own website and on its Facebook page, using or linking to the language alleged in paragraph 1. In addition to the foregoing online activities, whether Drafthouse has also violated Section and (C) of the Ordinance by circulating, issuing, displaying, posting, or mailing printed signs or brochures that further advertise the discriminatory denial of service is unknown but suspected. 4. Retaliatory Harassment. From May 24, 2017, to the present, on a continuing basis, Dra?house has violated Section 5-2-10 of Austin?s Public Accommodations Ordinance by facilitating, encouraging, and engaging in retaliatory harassment, (see, Martinelli v. Penn Millers Ins. Co., 269 F. App?x 226, 230 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding retaliatory harassment actionable even if not ?severe or pervasive?)), against individuals who attempt to oppose the discrimination alleged in this charge in an effort to terminate or discourage such protected oppositional conduct. Speci?cally, Drafthouse has maintained a public comment ?eld to its Facebook post in which it has allowed, condoned, and in some instances encouraged customers who support its discriminatory screenings to harass, defame, malign, belittle, and gender-stereotype any individual who attempts to criticize or oppose the discriminatory screenings, and Drafthouse has in some instances participated in this retaliatory harassment itself. As a part of this ongoing pattern of retaliatory harassment for engaging in protected oppositional conduct and for participating in the ?ling and investigation of a charge of discrimination, Drafthouse has publicly maligned me personally as a supposed ?troll? who has exhibited supposed ?wrath? against empowered women, thus falsely defaming me as a misogynist, in a nationally prominent newspaper of global circulation. See Peter Holley, ?Why a gay law professor is trying to shut down women?only ?Wonder Woman? screenings,? Washington Post, June 1, 2017 (paragraph 3 7), 7/ 06/ 0 l/why?a? gay-law- (see attached). (Contrary to the headline and for the record, my objective is not to ?shut down? any screenings but to prevent discrimination at the scheduled ones or at any further ones that the corporation has suggested it may offer in the future.) 2/4 5. Indirect Discrimination. On Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 6:30 pm. and again at 7:00 pm. Drafthouse intends to violate?and from and after May 24, 2017, did violate?Section and (B) of Austin?s Public Accommodations Ordinance indirectly on the basis of sex, gender identi?cation, and sexual orientation by directly refusing or denying persons certain public accommodations based on sex and/or gender identi?cation, as alleged above in paragraphs 1 and 2. Speci?cally, Drafthouse has expressly, falsely, and stereotypically presupposed, both in its online advertisement and in comments to its Facebook post, that only persons who publicly identify as female are actually or appropriately inspired by or especially interested or justi?ed in celebrating female empowerment or the female comic book character known as ?Wonder Woman,? who is featured in the ?lm that is the subject of the discriminatory screenings. In addition to stereotyping on the basis of sex and/or gender identi?cation, this false prejudgment and its resulting denial of service to anyone not publicly identifying as a woman has an adverse disparate impact on gay men, for whom this character has also been a notable ?icon? since at leat the 19703 and who have routinely celebrated this character as a beloved role model in drag events, pride parades, and other situations. The disparate impact is exacerbated by the retaliatory harassment alleged in paragraph 4 to the extent that men opposing the discriminatory screenings, myself included, having been falsely castigated as misogynistic, sexually insecure, and other false and defamatory characterizations. 6. Employment Discrimination. On Tuesday, June 6, 2017, at 6:30 pm. and again at 7:00 pm. Drafthouse intends to violate of Austin?s Employment Discrimination Ordinance as well as Section 703(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against its employees on the basis of sex. Speci?cally, Drafthouse intends to discriminatorily assign only female employees to all job positions relating to the June 6 screenings described in paragraph 1. In its online advertisement of the screenings, it has promised customers that ?Everyone working at this screening -- venue staff, projectionist, and culinary team -- will be female.? 7. Employment Advertising. From May 24, 2017, to the present, on a continuing basis, Drafthouse has violated Section of Austin?s Employment Discrimination Ordinance as well as Section 704(b) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 at least by ?display[ing]? or ?publish[ing]? statements or advertisements that unambiguously state that certain of its public accommodations will be denied to individuals based on sex and/or gender identi?cation, and that the patronage or presence of certain individuals is unwelcome based on sex and/or gender identi?cation. Speci?cally, Drafthouse has advertised the promise to its customers that at the June 6 screenings described in paragraph ?Everyone working at this screening -- venue staff, proj ectionist, and culinary team -- will be female.? Whether Drafthouse has also repeated similarly discriminatory statements in printed material, as explained in paragraph 3, is unknown but suspected. 8. Employment Retaliation. From May 24, 2017, to the present, on a continuing basis, Drafthouse has violated of Austin?s Employment Discrimination Ordinance as well as Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by facilitating, encouraging, and engaging in 3/4 retaliatory harassment against individuals who attempt to oppose the employment discrimination alleged in paragraph 6 in an effort to terminate or discourage such protected oppositional conduct. The basis for this allegation is the same conduct alleged in paragraph 4 above. 9. Willful Violations. The discriminatory behavior alleged in paragraphs 1 throug 8 has been not only knowing, but willful. Despite repeated oppositional comments by multiple individuals on Drafthouse?s Facebook page warning that it is explicitly violating Austin?s Public Accommodations Ordinance, including more than one speci?cally linking to the Ordinance, Drafthouse has persisted. Indeed, it has adamantly retorted, ?This has zip to do with equality.? 4/4 ammo DENIM YOUR LOCAL ALAMO: NEWYORK THEATERS MOVIES FOOD DRINK MERCHANDISE MORE DIRECTOR STARRING AGE POLICY ]8 anti up; 6 and up will he allowed only will] an adult. Nu chilrlren under the. age (IFG will be a I lowed. BEE-II WOMEN ONLY SCREENING: WONDER WOMAN 2?31?! RITZ her own movie. and what better way to celebrate than with an all- fenrale screening? Apologies. gentlemen. we're embracing our girl power and saying "No Guys Allowed? for one special night at the Alamo Ritz. And when we say "People. \Vho Identify As Wlomen Only." we mean it. Everyone working at this screening venue. stall; projectionist. anti culinary team will be female. 30 lasso your geeky girlfriends together and grab vouJ tickets to . this celebration rrFone nFthe most enduring and inspiring Lih Crc?cl About WON DER explodes the boundaries of the DC Movie Universe with an action-packed story ofwar. love and the true price ol?peace. all set against the backdrop ofThe \Var to End All W?ars. The Amazons. a race of?eree women warriors, live. in peace on their island until the fires reach their shores in the person of downed airman Steve Trevor (STAR Chris Pine). The news he brings from ?Man's World" is grim engines oFdearh and clouds ofchoklng gas have consumed the globe. and it seems like the old Foe Arcsbehind it all. Diana. daughter oFerecn Hippolyta. leaves behind her island nation and ?nds ircr-selfa bright. shining beacon of hope in a world that desperately needs it A hundred years before BATMAN SUPERMAN, \Vontler \Womrln was first superhero. armed with a lasso of truth and bullet-proof bracelets. taking the Fight to the Kaiser and to Ares himself. Gal Gadot wowed fans as W?onder Woman in BVS, and now she has an El?lEIlt?. movie to showcase her badmis self. It's the superhero spectacle 80 years in the making 4 finally, Ol'l movie AUSTIN NEWS (the. {llashington post Why a gay law professor is trying to shut down women- only ?Wonder Woman? screenings By Peter Honey June 1 at 330 PM Stephen (Bark almost let it slide. The th tater was 2,000 miles away in Austin, and there was no chance he was going to Show up thereto see a movie emit/ray. As a gay man who considers himself sensitive to historically disadvantaged groups, there was even a part. of him that saw the value of a celebratory, women?only screening of ?Wonder Woman.? But Clark ?m a law professor at Albany Law School ?m changed his mind when he looked up Alamo Drafthonse?s Facehook page and began reading the heated exchanges between the theater?s management and the frastrated men calling the venue?s women-?only events ?discriminatory.? ?There was a Vibran happening on Facebook," Clark, 48, told The Washington Post. ?But when the theater responded to complaints, they were pretty snide about it and Willing to mock anyone who had a complaint and that really struck me." "There is also the fact that what they were doing is illega?,? he added. Alamo Dratthouse unveiled its women?only sereenings of ?Wonder Woman? last week. unleashing a torrent of excitement and anger, almost exclusively from men. The promotion worked, and the screening sold out. in a little over two hoars, according to the Drafthouse, with female fans rushing to buy tickets to the first major superhero feature film to star a woman since Jennifer Garner in 2005?s ?Elelitra.? For many women who ?ocked to the theater?s website to purchase tickets, the event was much more than a movie. ?This is the only woman superhero, directed by a woman, to hit the theaters Dayna Lorilei Pearce wrote on the theater?s Facebook page. ?Ever. Let that sink in. Let us have one screening. Just one to relish in that fact.? Instead of ignoring the theater?s decision, Clark began researching Austin?s city. code and decided to ?le an administrative charge with the city?s Equal Employment and Fair Housing Of?ce. He alleged that the Drafthouse?s women?only event as it was described in the theater?s advertising discriminated against male customers based on their gender. Citing the theater?s promise to staff only women at the events, Clark also alleged that the Drafthouse was illegally engaging in employment discrimination. ?It?s the principle of the thing,? he told The Post. ?I?m a gay man, and I?ve studied and taught gay rights for years. Our gay bars have long said that you do not exclude people because they?re gay or straight or transgender you just can?t do that for any reason.? ?We have to deal with the bachelorette parties that come to the gay bar,? he added. ?They?re terribly disruptive, but if you forbid women from coming to a gay bar, you?re starting down a slippery slope. It?s discrimination.? The theater initially embraced the male?dominated backlash online and promised to expand the women?only screenings across the country, but then appeared to walk back that promise in a statement emailed to The Post Wednesday. The statement said the women-only screenings may have sparked ?confusion.? ?Obviously, Alamo Drafthouse recognizes ?Wonder Woman? is a ?lm for all audiences, but our special women-only screenings may have created confusion we want everybody to see this the statement said. That confusion may have been due to the explicit nature of the theater?s previous statements barring male customers. ?Apologies, gentlemen, but we?re embracing our girl power and saying ?No Guys Allowed? for one special night at the Alamo Ritz. And when we say ?People Who Identify As Women Only,? we mean it,? the theater announced Wednesday about the June 6 showing. ?Everyone working at this screening venue staff, proj ectionist, and culinary team will be female.? ?So lasso your geeky girlfriends together and grab your tickets to this celebration of one of the most enduring and inspiring characters ever created,? added the announcement, which has been shared on Facebook more than 1,700 times. Alexa Muraida, a city of Austin spokeswoman, told The Post that multiple people have ?led discrimination complaints with the EFHO following the Drafthouse?s decision to hold women?only screenings. Muraida declined to con?rm the names of individual filers, but said the city is ?reviewing? and ?investigating? the charges. The screening drew praise from some, but it also provoked an outpouring of anger from others who ?ooded the theater?s Facebook page to label the event ?sexist.? ?Very tacky Alamo,? Facebook user Allan Dale wrote. ?I?m all for equality and having a screening specifically stating it is not inclusive to everyone, is against equality. I?m not saying Alamo did this intentionally, but it is still just wrong.? The theater?s of?cial Facebook account responded to some of the critics, echoing the swarm of movie fans who descended on the page to defend the gender-speci?c screening. ?This has zip to do with equality,? the theater commented. ?This is a celebration of a character that?s meant a great deal to many women since 1940.? Responding to an angry email he received from a man calling for a boycott of Austin, Mayor Steve Adler delivered a sarcasm? laced rebuttal that defended the Drafthouse?s decision to reserve screenings for women. ?You and I are serious men of substance with little time for the delicate sensitivities displayed by the pitiful creature who maligned your good name and sterling character by writing that abysmal email,? Adler wrote. After reviewing Austin?s municipal code, Stacy Hawkins an associate professor of law at Rutgers University who specializes in employment law, civil rights and diversity told The Post that the theater?s management ?nds itself in an increasingly common position. As public and private sector organizations look for opportunities to celebrate diversity and embrace historically disadvantaged groups, they run the risk of violating laws that were designed to respond to overtly racist, exclusionary practices. Hawkins said anti?discrimination law is increasingly being used to attack diversity efforts through allegations of ?reverse discrimination.? Women-only movie screenings, Hawkins said, are not the same as ?old boys? clubs that excluded minorities and women. Intent matters, Hawkins said, but the law is not nuanced enough to distinguish between malicious and benign intent. ?This new focus on diversity and inclusion is not really accounted for by the laws of civil rights and discrimination,? Hawkins said. ?Law is not calibrated for our new political paradigm of diversity and inclusion. ?As far as public accommodations are concerned, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the reason this case was ?led under the Austin city code is that it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.? But Hawkins said she remains unconvinced that the women?only screenings violate male employees? rights. In order for a cause of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a male employee would have to show a ?material action,? such as losing a job or suffering the loss of pay. As long as male employees are assigned to other screenings in the theater, they aren?t losing their jobs, hours or pay, Hawkins said. don?t think that would constitute an adverse employment action,? she said. Hawkins said the entire controversy could have been avoided with a simple tweak in the theater?s advertising. ?Just eliminate ?no men welcome? language,? she said. ?You try to make sure you demonstrate this is an event for and about women and, most likely, men aren?t going to show up.? Alamo Drafthouse which was founded in Austin in 1997 has never shied away from provocative marketing and public political stances that embody the city?s countercultural spirit. Last year, in the midst of a heated national debate about transgender people using public restrooms, the theater?s founder, Tim League, announced plans to build a gender?neutral restroom with all?gender urinals. The ?agship Austin location one of 26 across the nation said last week that the criticism online has been met with a positive response in real life. ?We are very excited to present select, women-only WONDER WOMAN screenings at Alamo Drafthouse,? Morgan Hendrix, Alamo Drafthouse creative manager said in a statement emailed to The Post. ?That providing an experience where women truly reign supreme has incurred the wrath of trolls only serves to deepen our belief that we?re doing something right.? Clark said that statement was another example of the business?s ?brazen attitude? in ?defending its decision to engage in discrimination.? Another reason he found it offensive: He has many gay friends for whom ?Wonder Woman? was an idol growing up in the 19705. understand the reason for creating a women-only event, but the equality principle is fundamental,? he said. ?It sometimes means we have to give up some of our ?trait only? spaces to make sure we are not being exclusionary.? ?There are men in Austin who would like to celebrate women?s empowerment,? he added. ?There are women in Austin who would like to go to this event with their gay best friend, and they can?t under this rule.? More reading: Portland stabbing victim?s last words: ?Tell everyone on this train I love them? Cleveland police officer who fatally shot 12-year?old Tamir Rice is ?red but not for the killing Peter Holley is a general assignment reporter at The Washington Post. He can be reached at 3 Follow @peterjholley