Court cases database applications

¶ … DWI is placed in a precarious legal position because it has competing duties. On the one hand, DWI cannot discriminate against any of its patrons on the basis of race. On the other hand, its refusal to do so has placed its employees in a position of danger. While the threats that DWI and the hotel have received have been directed against the property and its guests, when the snipers came, one of the employees was injured and the property was damaged. Since the sniper attack, the hotel has received additional threats of violence and damage. In response, many of the employees have claimed to be sick and failed to appear for work. On the other hand, Arab-American groups and others threatened to boycott DWI if the company acquiesced to the blackmail.

What is clear is that DWI cannot, under any circumstances, bar clientele from its hotel because of their race. Under Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), the Court determined that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited racial discrimination in places of public accommodation such as hotels and motels, was a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. In Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), the Court determined that Title II could constitutionally be applied to restaurants, because much of the food served in restaurants moves within the stream of commerce. The result of those cases was that hotels and other establishments offering public accommodations in the United States were absolutely barred from discriminating on the basis of race. To bar any of its Arab-American or Middle-Eastern customers would expose DWI to tremendous financial liability. Such action would also be a public relations nightmare for a large company such as DWI, which operates in an international arena.