fallesenstroud561980

The motel, also known as Motor Hotel, Motor Court, Tourist Court or Motor Inn, was initially a small hotel designed particularly for persons traveling by automobile, having suitable parking lots available. These motels serve business and leisure travelers and persons going to conventions and meetings. There are many types of motels and a number of them are: overall service motel, local/chartered/express motel, chain/branded motel and super discount motel. The prices are usually affordable. A motel can be found in each town or city.

There are three types of motel lodging available in the United States: boarding, self-contained or serviced and live/stay-away motels. Boarding motels are usually located on plenty of land and there is a frequent entry/exit door and halls. There are a housekeeping service and a team including maids and butlers.

The first motel business was founded in Mississippi in the early 1960s. The first motels appeared in many southern state as a result of the Jackson Hole Model Act. This was a legislative initiative initiated by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Alexander Hamilton that helped the motel industry throughout the country. It established a normal operating code for all institutions. A motel for the first time turned into a bona fide business and a bona fide enterprise in its own right, when this act was passed.

The motel had to register with the secretary of trade and input into a registry that would stay until such time as it had been renewed. A motel was subsequently deemed to have full legal rights to advertise and sell its services. It was authorized to set its own prices for room rates and for furnishings and there was no limit on the number of rooms it could accommodate. It was also authorized to regulate private businesses in the area by posting notices.

img width="493" src="">

Since the motel had all of these rights, the Mobile Manufactured Home Housing Division of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determined that it discriminated against African Americans in violation of the Fair Housing Act. On July 13, 1964, the Department of Justice announced it was going to file a lawsuit against M & H Homes. The complaint alleged that the motel owner had maintained unlawful discrimination by maintaining coloured and white customers and guests segregated. At that point, the criticism was sealed, and there had been no final decision about what form of relief that the government would seek. There had been no finding of actual discrimination.

On July 7, the United States Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit in Toledo, Ohio affirmed the decision. Writing for the majority, Judge Clawson wrote:"A motel is a business that operates in a community with a considerable number of predominantly residential areas. There is not any reason why a reasonable person could realize that the motel's practices prohibited the access of a black man to a white owned and operated motel." He went on to say that the evidence showed that M & H Homes' policy of refusing to supply its services to individuals that are not members of their ownership or management family, and requiring all applicants for membership to get a credit report, was in effect a kind of discrimination prohibited by the disparate treatment act. He also found that due to the discriminatory nature of the motel's membership policies, the motel was subjected to a disparate treatment against the equal protection and undue advantage enjoyed by white companies under the disparate treatment act.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the district court's holding. Writing for a divided court, a three-judge panel has held that the motel had really established a practice of excluding African Americans from membership or access to its properties, but that the exclusion was not based on any discriminatory intent, as required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, the court has found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the matter due to the exclusive power of Congress over the reservation clause of the Fort Apache reservation. Accordingly, the panel vacates the fourth cause of action. The panel further holds that although M & H Homes can be justified on the basis of a'business reason' for excluding African-Americans, that reason does not outweigh the impact of the decision in effectuating a racial exclusion. Accordingly, the case is dismissed.

While the First and Fourteenth Amendments expressly afford security to African-Americans against racial discrimination in places of business, the decisions in this case do not support the broad proposition that a motel could be sued for racial discrimination solely because among its motel customers happens to be an African American. This case illustrates a harder question is presented when a plaintiff asserts that racial discrimination with a'lodestone motel manager' caused him to be refused service, rather than simply being a regular guest. Although we recognize the problem of answering questions of racial discrimination, we also recognize that it is for a myriad of reasons that some cases reach the courts. The majority opinion doesn't reflect such a concern. We concur in the judgment of the court of appeals, but suggest that the court make the inquiries of reasonableness even more difficult, as the facts in this case illustrate the difficulties inherent in determining whether racial discrimination is motivated. https://www.instapaper.com/p/crackharp11