Snowboarder Suit Dismissed

[Baaahb]

You know, the one against Alta claiming discrimination.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think there would be a better claim under the terms of the Forest Service permit than under the Equal Protection Clause...

[Sugarloafer]

You should be happy…..lawyers getting rich suing over stupid stuff. Last time I checked a snowboard was a piece of equipment, not a person that's in a protected class.

[cesare]

I think it's silly not to allow snowboards, but Alta is a private company so they can require whatever equipment they want to. You could say it's bad for business but Alta is not that big and gets tracked out as it is. Maybe they don't need to sell anymore lift tickets and are fine with excluding 40% or whatever the number is of potential customers. I agree with Sugarloafer. A snowboard is a choice. Discrimination is not about the choices people make, it's about who they are as a person. I would hope that no judge would allow this case to proceed.

Back in the day, telemarkers were not allowed at Jackson Hole. After 1982, when Rick Wyatt skied the Grand on teles they lifted the ban. But while we were annoyed by it, we were too busy skiing the backcountry to worry too much about not being allowed to ride the tram on our favorite gear. You want to ride Alta? Play by their rules. Don't act like a victim because you only want to ride sideways on one board.

Edited to correct statement about private land. I checked and it's only partially private land.

[bobs]

It was a stupid suit, basically some lawyers trying to get their names in the news. Activity (or gear) "discrimination" is inherent to the policy that allows a downhill resort to operate on public land in the first place.

[NOBS]

I heard from a lawyer buddy of mine who's been at alta for 30 years that one of the snowboard big guys was quietly financing the lawsuit...maybe Burton? He thought the lawsuit had merit after reading the complaint.

[Baaahb]

Bobs, it would be a silly lawsuit if Alta operated on its own land, but when it operates on public land under a forest service lease it should need to have a good reason when it excludes someone for an activity that normally is accepted at ski resorts. I'm interested in seeing if this angle were even discussed by the court.

[bobs]

I defer to the actual lawyers. Still, it seemed to me a reach that they were claiming a right to use particular gear within what's actually called a "special use permit."

[Mark Sitz]

Why didn't they go after Deer Valley? Do they "allow"?

[Sugarloafer]

I think someone has already tried this angle and lost but I don't give a sh*t enough to search for it but I think that's stupid too….it's their business; they get to make the rules. Snowboards aren't people. Are golf courses that make you wear collared shirts discriminating against people that wear t-shirts???

Alta's not really a snowboard-friendly mountain (ALTA= Another Long Traverse Asshole) so I'm surprised this is such a big issue.

Bobs, it would be a silly lawsuit if Alta operated on its own land, but when it operates on public land under a forest service lease it should need to have a good reason when it excludes someone for an activity that normally is accepted at ski resorts. I'm interested in seeing if this angle were even discussed by the court.

[Baaahb]

Are golf courses that make you wear collared shirts discriminating against people that wear t-shirts???

If such a golf course were on public land, you can bet there would be a lot of protest about it. You can probably find precedent in cases striking down some old Jim Crow laws. Is a law that says you must own an acre of property in order to vote a law discriminating against people. or against property?

[Baaahb]

Here info from the plaintiffs.

The complaint (available on that link) is entertaining reading. It looks like they included some quotes from Sugarloafer.

Although they discuss the permit, they did not include a cause of action for violation of the permit. Perhaps splitting hairs, but I think the discrimination claim arises through the permit.

[tele.skier]

Here info from the plaintiffs.

The complaint (available on that link) is entertaining reading. It looks like they included some quotes from Sugarloafer.

Although they discuss the permit, they did not include a cause of action for violation of the permit. Perhaps splitting hairs, but I think the discrimination claim arises through the permit.

Interesting that the article says:

but complaints against snowboarding and popular opinion at the time lead Alta management to ban the sport indefinitely.

I wonder if Alta uses this rationale as their reason for banning snowboards or have they taken it to a different place.... I have commonly heard management agencies of various recreational facilities say things like: "We don't allow (a certain behavior) because our insurance cost would increase so much that we wouldn't be able to operate profitably." These insurance reasons comments attempt to shift the focus away from "skiers complained about snowboarders" as the reason for their banning, which seems like a petty reason.

At the lift area I mostly ski, they actually allow snowbikes as well as pinheads, boarders, and skiers. I don't see the snow bikers doing anything too dissimilar from any of us snow sliders to warrant their exclusion. They are able to use the slope just as safely and under control as anyone else I see... I guess alta doesn't allow snow bikers either...

Mostly, I don't care what alta does in the end because I'll probably never ski there anyway. I am more interested in their stated rationalization for their policy purely as a source of personal amusment. I'd have more respect for them if they just say, "We don't want snowboard culture here", than some stupid lame excuse related to suposed safety concern or insurance issues.

[Baaahb]

It seems that the legal analysis is similar to whether resorts can exclude uphill traffic, which is an important issue to me.

[dschane]

Mostly, I don't care what alta does in the end because I'll probably never ski there anyway. I am more interested in their stated rationalization for their policy purely as a source of personal amusment. I'd have more respect for them if they just say, "We don't want snowboard culture here", than some stupid lame excuse related to suposed safety concern or insurance issues.

I tend to mirror that view.

Is there an express statement from Alta on the rationale for excluding snowboarding?

It seems to me that a lawsuit based on the Equal Protection Clause never had a chance and would lend itself only to ridicule in the media. But, I'm curious why they didn't compile statistics on resort accidents involving snowboarders vs skiers and, assuming those numbers show no statistical differences, challenged FS's permit approval on the ground that the conclusion that snowboarding "creates an unnecessary risk to other skiers and/or the user of the device" is arbitrary. Maybe the numbers do in fact support Alta's decision? Probably, the numbers mostly support excluding 15- to 20-year olds, but Alta obviously won't go there.

[polemonium]

If such a golf course were on public land, you can bet there would be a lot of protest about it. You can probably find precedent in cases striking down some old Jim Crow laws. Is a law that says you must own an acre of property in order to vote a law discriminating against people. or against property?

You're not making the distinction between restricting based on people, or based on behavior/use. Golf courses on public land don't have to allow cricket or fox-hunting. They can even keep you from jogging across it, which is a possible analogy with uphill traffic (it ticks me off that much public parkland in cities is heavily restricted use, but there's a lot of precedent and money involved).

Ski areas will unfortunately probably always be able to use "safety" nebulously to restrict uphill traffic if they really want to.

I have no interest in supporting Alta's behavior but it does not meet the standards of discriminating against people.

From the TGR thread, I thought they didn't target Deer Valley because private land.