Motel Case Confronted By Mississippi
The motel, also known as Motor Hotel, Motor Court, Tourist Court or Motor Inn, was initially a small hotel designed especially for persons traveling by car, having convenient parking lots available. Go to the website These motels serve business and leisure travelers and persons visiting conventions and meetings. There are many types of motels and some of them are: overall service motel, local/chartered/express motel, chain/branded motel and superb discount motel. The prices are usually affordable. A motel can be found in every town or city.
There are three forms of motel lodging available in the United States: boarding, self-contained or serviced and live/stay-away motels. Boarding motels are often located on plenty of land and there is a common entry/exit door and hallways. You will find a housekeeping service and a team including maids and butlers.
The first motel company was set in Mississippi in the early 1960s. The initial motels appeared in several southern country 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 across the nation. It established a standard operating code for all establishments. A motel for the first time became 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 which would stay until such time as it was renewed. A motel was subsequently deemed to have full legal rights to market and sell its services. It was authorized to set its own rates 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 region by posting notices.
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 keeping white and colored customers and guests segregated. At that stage, the criticism was sealed, and there was no final decision about what form of relief the government would seek. There was 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 substantial number of mostly residential areas. There's absolutely no reason why a reasonable person could realize that the motel's practices prohibited the access of a black person to a white owned and operated motel." He went on to say that the evidence revealed that M & H Homes' policy of refusing to provide its services to individuals who are not members of their ownership or management household, and requiring all applicants for membership to get a credit report, was in effect a form of discrimination prohibited by the disparate treatment act. He also found that because of the discriminatory nature of the motel's membership policies, the motel was exposed to a disparate treatment contrary to 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 wasn't based on any discriminatory intent, as required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, the court has found that it didn't 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 protection to African-Americans against racial discrimination in areas of business, the decisions in this case do not support the broad proposition that a motel can be sued for racial discrimination solely because one of its motel customers happens to be an African American. This case illustrates that a more difficult question is presented when a plaintiff asserts that racial discrimination with a'lodestone motel manager' caused him to be denied service, as opposed to simply being a regular guest. Although we recognize the difficulty of answering questions of racial discrimination, we also realize that it is for an array of reasons that some cases reach the courts. The vast majority opinion does not reflect such a concern. We concur in the judgment of the court of appeals, but indicate 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 prompted.