This is how they'll play it, I can almost promise you. This guy clearly didn't get hugged often enough by his mother and the morality (well, lack thereof) here is a totally separate issue.
Courts and the law as written don't require “I was barred” or “they checked my race.” The argument is simply that a publicly advertised price benefit was explicitly tied to race, which is a protected class under public accommodations law. That will likely get it filed and moved forward initially.
Things like “it wasn’t enforced,” “anyone could’ve used it,” or “he could’ve gone another night” don’t really defeat that argument. Intent doesn’t matter much here, and neither does enforcement. Pricing criteria is the issue. For people bringing up age -- you'll note that in the few cases of lawsuits surrounding those, companies have changed their practices for the most part. You don't want that to go to court because it's a losing battle even with a liberal court.
Student rush, email codes, TKTS, etc. aren’t good comparisons legally because those are based on status or access, not protected characteristics. Courts treat race differently, whether we like it or not.
Where this likely dies is damages and standing. He wasn’t denied a ticket, wasn’t refused the code, and voluntarily paid a higher price in a room where everyone paid different prices. PH wasn’t wrong morally. This guy is acting in bad (horrid) faith. But the legal vulnerability isn’t imaginary, and that’s why it's getting the coverage it is.
Again, to be clear. This is assholery at its finest. But perhaps non-profits should also learn that when you work to be a part of those communities rather than just using them for a cash-grab on the occasional show, you have contacts to send codes out through meant for members of that community rather than posting it online like a "HEY! SUE ME!" sign.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
