um, California...
-v-
NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS: The Right of (Dis)Association by Randy Cassingham of
http://www.stellaawards.com
"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" reads a classic restaurant sign. Other businesses proclaim the "right to refuse service to anyone". Beyond discrimination, why shouldn't businesses be able to say who they will do business with?
John Claassen, 36, of Emeryville, Calif., was looking for a date, and
logged on to the online dating service eHarmony to find a match. "After
taking two hours to fill out their online profile," he said, "a message
popped up at the end saying they would not find me a match."
Why not? Because Claassen is married, and eHarmony restricts its
dating services to single people. A customer service rep told Claassen
that's their rule, and they'd welcome him as a customer once his
divorce is final.
"If I had my druthers, I'd be divorced by now," Claassen said. "I'm
emotionally in a different state than I am legally."
But isn't his legal status the point? One is either married or not,
and Claassen was married when he entered his profile -- he even
admitted
it there, which is how eHarmony knew about it in the first place. But
he
spent TWO HOURS carefully writing his profile! And oh: did Claassen
mention he's a lawyer? Uh oh: what happens when a lawyer feels like
someone has wasted TWO WHOLE HOURS of his time, which left him
"miffed"? He sues, of course.
Citing a California law which prohibits discrimination based on
marital status, Claassen sued eHarmony in Alameda County Superior
Court, demanding $12,000 in damages.
"I just think I've got a right as an individual trying to recover from
something that wasn't the high point of my life," Claassen said. "If
thatincludes dating now, why can't I?"
He can: there are all sorts of places that welcome legally separated
people looking for a date, including online sites. But eHarmony isn't
one
of them. As "an individual" he can go to bars, to church groups, to
singles meetings. But "individual" help isn't what he's asking by
taking
this to the people's courts: he's demanding that a business change
their
way of doing things to accommodate him outside of their established
rules. That's not their problem; it's his.
Dating sites need to be careful: they don't know whether one of their
clients is a crazed stalker, and it has a right to put in procedures,
suggestions, and rules to make the experience fit the market segment
they're trying to attract. eHarmony is clearly in the business of
helping
single people meet up, and it's reasonable to prohibit married people
from swimming in their singles dating pool. To demand that the courts
jump in and change the rules rather than simply go do business
somewhere else is a petty abuse of the system. Claassen seems to have a fool for a client.
SOURCES:
1) "Married Man Sues eHarmony Over Rejection", San Jose Mercury News,
27 March 2006
http://StellaAwards.com/cgi-bin/redirect5.pl?74a
2) "Married Lawyer Sues eHarmony for Refusing to Help Him Find Love",
Associated Press, 27 March 2006