BREAKING: Ladies Nights Doomed?

I just broke this news for The New York Times about the Nevada Equal Rights Commission finding that gender-based pricing violates Nevada statutes. It's an open question whether it's enforceable and I've also posted an analysis at the Las Vegas Weekly's site on that side of the matter. Plus, we'll discuss this on the podcast tonight as well quite a bit, so grab that show when it's up on Thursday.

I find the whole topic fascinating and encourage you to chime on on whether Strip attractions ought to be allowed to charge women less than men for the same services. You can read NERC's ruling -- love the part about women's body parts falling out -- by clicking here.

MGM Mirage, which owns three topless pools and hosts a few nightclubs with gender-based prices, disagreed with NERC. Here's what Alan Feldman, MGM Mirage veep, wrote me in a statement:

*We believe that the longstanding practice of many Nevada hospitality industries
to charge different entry/cover charges to men and women continues to be lawful.

*The state's public accommodation statute does not prohibit different cover
charges on the basis of gender, and never intended to prohibit such practices as
"ladies nights."

*Taken to its logical conclusion, NERC's decision calls into question such
practices as charging different prices for seniors or children at movies or
attractions such as museums or amusement parks. It might also apply to charges
for services such as haircuts and dry cleaning. Also, based on NERC's reasoning,
it is unclear whether a movie theatre would be permitted from prohibiting a
minor from entering an R-rated movie unaccompanied by an adult.

*While we are continuing to review the Nevada Equal Right Commission's position
in the Las Vegas Athletic Club matter, at this time we do not intend to change
our cover charge practices.

This week's LVW col...

Here's this week's Las Vegas Weekly column...

Fee for all

Should cover charges in Vegas be equitable for both sexes

By STEVE FRIESS

Before you roll your eyes and groan, hear Adam Russin out. He’s not trying to get any money, he’s not trying to draw any attention to himself, and he’s absolutely, positively not trying to ruin your good time.

He just has a simple question that seems to have only one logical answer. And very soon, odds are good the state will agree with him, and a lot of melon carts will be upset.

Russin’s question: How can anyone seriously believe it is not discriminatory to charge a man more than a woman for the same access or service?

This spring, the 25-year-old New Yorker was staying at the Mandalay Bay for a bachelor party and wanted to go with his chums to the Moorea Beach Club, the resort’s topless pool. He was startled to find out that the pool charges men $50 for admission and $10 to women, so he filed a complaint with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission (NERC) demanding the practice stop.

Oh, boo hoo, you say. Everybody knows that these pools and clubs charge men more and that bouncers admit fewer of them in order to maintain a balance that makes the place a favorable flirting circumstance for members of both sexes. If they don’t have established prices like Moorea, then they run promotional ladies’ nights where women get in free or at reduced prices. It’s a marketing tactic as old as rum and Coke. But it might also be against the law. And a cursory reading of the text would seem to support that view. In 2005, the Nevada Legislature amended its nondiscrimination clause for public accommodations to include “sex” along with the race, religion, sexual orientation and all the rest. Weird that it wasn’t already in there, but that’s beside the point.

By public accommodations, NRS 651.050 is so expansive that Moorea could be included under subset (j) as “any park, zoo, amusement park or other place of recreation,” subset (b) as “any restaurant, bar, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, casino or any other facility where food or spirituous or malt liquors are sold, including any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment,” subset (m) as “any gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course or other place of exercise or recreation” or even, depending on the quality of the racks on display, subset (i) as “any museum, library, gallery or other place of public display or collection.”

Any way you slice it, Moorea is one, right? And if so, no matter how badly you want more exposed knockers at the pool, the law doesn’t allow you to engineer it through your prices, does it?

Read the rest HERE