California Supreme Court
May 31, 2019
Lawyer’s discrimination suit at high court turns on standing
Advocates squared off Thursday over whether an online credit card payment processor’s restrictive terms of service provide the basis for a discrimination suit in a case set to clarify when internet companies violate civil rights laws by filtering out potential users.
A California attorney's effort to simplify the business of his practice has made its way to the state Supreme Court, where advocates squared off Thursday over his ability to sue for alleged discrimination he said was caused by an online credit card payment processor's restrictive terms of service.
Robert E. White is a bankruptcy specialist who sought to use an online payment service provided by Square Inc., to more simply accept cre...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
Civil Rights
Sisemore v. Master Financial Inc.
Day care home operator states FEHA claim for intentional source-of-income and disparate impact discrimination in suit against lender.
