Well-known mens’ rights activist and attorney sues United Airlines for violating Unruh Act by denying discount to those older than 18-22.

Fare discounts United Airlines offered passengers aged 18 to 22 discriminated against older flyers, a proposed federal class action alleged.

The airline said the claim is baseless.

"It is especially troubling and more than a bit hypocritical that United's divisive and exclusive discount, which excluded customers who were too old, violated United's own mission statement that hypes United's supposed commitment to diversity and inclusion," stated the complaint filed Tuesday in federal court in San Diego. Fuiolevaga Riddick and David Pacheco v. United Airlines Inc., 3:20CV02148 (S.D. Cal., filed Nov. 3, 2020).

The proposed class includes purchasers and intended purchasers who were denied the discount, and seeks more than $5 million in damages.

United began giving the discounts last month to young travelers on U.S. domestic flights, and trips to Canada and Mexico through Dec. 31.

Rachel Rivas, spokeswoman for United, said Wednesday the discount aimed to make travel more accessible to those who are still in college or starting their careers.

"It is a shame that a few individuals take issue with an offer that is intended to make travel more accessible to more people," Rivas said. "We believe this lawsuit is completely baseless and will defend ourselves vigorously."

The lawsuit was filed by Alfred G. Rava, a prominent mens' rights activist who has brought several high profile cases against retailers and tech companies alleging age, sex and race-based discrimination.

The two named class representatives are Fuiolevaga Riddick, 23, and David Pacheco, 67. Both said they purchased a ticket with United, but missed out on the discount as they were "above the arbitrary 22-year-old cutoff" in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the lawsuit stated.

"United's discount intentionally discriminated against plaintiffs and other United customers based on their age and the discount constituted arbitrary, unreasonable and/or invidious discrimination," the lawsuit stated.

Gil Peles, a litigator with Tauler Smith LLP who specializes in corporate, business and general commercial disputes, predicted the airline will have an uphill battle defending the lawsuit, as there is no legislatively recognized social policy that justifies special treatment of 18- to 22-year-old customers.

Had United's promotion applied to college students it would have been fine, he argued, "because that is not a classification based on age." Peles also referred to a 2018 lawsuit involving a Tinder discount for app users younger than 30, Candelore v. Tinder Inc., 19 Cal. App. 5th 1183 (2018). In Candelore, "the California Supreme Court held that age-based discounts are prohibited under the Unruh Act unless they are justified by compelling social policy considerations as evidenced by legislative enactments," said Peles, who is not involved in the United action.

Rava was the prevailing plaintiff's attorney in the Candelore case.

"As examples of permissible discounts, the court cited discounts for children and seniors. These classes of people are specially recognized by the Legislature as being in different financial positions as everyone else," Peles explained.

The Candelore case closely mirrors another case, Lisa Kim v. Tinder Inc., 18-CV-383 (N.D. Cal., filed April 12, 2018), which the dating app quickly settled by paying $17 million, he said.

"In fact, Candelore was aware of that case as well, and tried to fight the settlement in some ways because they didn't want it to negatively affect the Candelore case," Peles said.

Rava previously represented prevailing plaintiffs in a landmark California Supreme Court sex discrimination case, Angelucci v. Century Supper Club, 41 Cal. 4th 160 167 (2007). The late Marc Angelucci and other men were visiting a Los Angeles nightclub that offered a special ladies' night discount or free admission to women only. The men sued the nightclubs for violating the Unruh Act and the Gender Tax Repeal Act.

The Angelucci panel in its reversal of the 2nd District Court of Appeal's affirmation, held that African-Americans, Hispanics, men, women and members of the LGBTQ community and others discriminated against by businesses do not have to show they asked for but were refused equal treatment in order to have standing to allege an Unruh violation.

The nightclub argued the men never asked for a ladies night discount and could only sue after requesting the discount and being denied. But the court said it was enough for the men to merely be denied such a discount, Peles said.