msnbc.com
updated 9/3/2010 11:25:31 AM ET 2010-09-03T15:25:31

A federal court has ruled that “Ladies Night” is all right.

The Manhattan-based Second Court of Appeals rejected a claim by Den Hollander, a self-proclaimed "Men's Rights" lawyer, who insisted that “Ladies Night” promotions such as half-price drinks and cheaper admission were unconstitutional, a result of “40 years of lobbying and intimidation, [by] the special interest group called ‘Feminism.’ "

Hollander insisted that because nightclubs are licensed by the state, the special deals required them to adhere to the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Without court intervention, Hollander claimed “none other than what’s left of the Wall Street moguls” will be able to afford to attend nightclubs.

The court wasn’t impressed by Hollander's lawsuit against a handful of New York clubs. It said nightclubs weren’t “state actors,” and dismissed the action.

Video: Why should ladies have all the fun? (on this page)

According to the New York Daily News, Hollander is planning to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  1. Most popular

Asked by a reporter about the odds that the high court will agree to hear his case, he responded that it was "about the same as some pretty young lady paying my way on a date."

On his website, Hollander says he’s fighting for men’s rights “before they have no rights left."

© 2013 msnbc.com Reprints

Video: Why should ladies have all the fun?

  1. Closed captioning of: Why should ladies have all the fun?

    >>> oh, the bar scene. what's missing from that picture? a class action lawsuit , obviously. we kid. but you know, why is it okay for bars to charge men for more than women? one new york man says it's unconstitutional lawyer roy holiander is representing men and several clubs were on occasion ladies pay less or get faster admission. he argues that because the clubs licensed to sell alcohol by new york state they're subject to the 14th amendment 's equal protection clause which only applies to state actors . unfortunately, for him, the 2nd circuit court of appeals did not agree. they ruled against him on this week. they even called the pleadings lacking. as "the new york post" put it, lola can still get into the copa for free. good morning, sir. i'm sure you're disappointed about the lawsuit. before the legalities here, why -- just tell me your story. what made you want to sue over ladies night ?

    >> the way it started is it was christmas eve 2006 . i was standing waiting in line with a couple of my buddies outside a club on 22nd street and it was cold outside. so we're standing there waiting to get in. the girls come by. they go in. they don't have to wait and they get in free. we, however, had to pay $20. i started thinking, wait a minute. this isn't fair. i brought the lawsuit. and also, if you read the law, the case decision by the 2nd circuit court correctly, and in detail, you will see that it only says it's not constitutional. it says it is not constitution alto have ladies nights where they charge men more for a drink than girls. however, it is permissible under this skigs to charge guys more for admission. you have to make a distinction whether a club charges guys more for admission for a club or charging guys more for a drink.

    >> all right.

    >> charging guys more for a drink is unconstitutional. that's authority for anybody in any court in the land.

    >> you lost your lawsuit. we can get into that for a minute but just in order to sue and try to say this is a constitutional violation, you know, we are talking about private business here. you have to show that the private business, the bar in this case, is basically a state actor . basically, standing in the place of the state . otherwise, it doesn't work for this lawsuit. so how did you try to argue that the bars are actually representing the state ?

    >> okay. well once again, according to the decision by the 2nd circuit , the state involved when you transfer the alcohol across the bar to somebody but the state not involved when you enter the door. when the guy shows up at the door and they charge him more, it is okay. because the state 's not involved. the argument i used was a public function argument . the sale of alcohol has traditionally always been controlled by the state . both before prohibition and after prohibition.

    >> wait a minute. wait a minute.

    >> that's the argument i used for --

    >> okay.

    >> for state action .

    >> okay. but i mean, we only have about a minute left. the 2nd circuit rejected that argument and basically said, give us a break here. even though the state regulates the sale of alcohol, the state does not force these bars to charge any one thing. therefore, you're at a court. there's no link between what these private bars did and what the state forced them to do.

    >> but you see, that's just one test under state action . and that --

    >> rejected all of it, yeah.

    >> the key argument is public function which is a different test. if you have a private entity doing what the state traditionally does, with the state traditionally has power to do then you have state action and that's the main part of the argument. not what you're saying.

    >> okay. but the court did -- i mean, didn't buy that argument either, right?

    >> no. the court didn't address it.

    >> okay.

    >> that's what i'm going to present to the u.s. supreme court to see if they'll let me in which i doubt.

    >> okay. well, you already answered my question. you're going to the supreme court and not looking for damages, right?

    >> no.

    >> yeah. okay. all right. roy, it's an interesting case. keep us posted on what happens.

    >> will do. thank you.

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,

Most active discussions

  1. votes comments
  2. votes comments
  3. votes comments
  4. votes comments