Jankey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an establishment that limits its facilities and services to employees and their guests is not a place of public accommodation
• concluding that occasionally renting facility to outside organizations, at the discretion of the director, did not make the facility “available indiscriminately to ... members of the general public” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that commissary where “during regular business hours, only employees and their guests have access” is exempt from ADA
• noting that a private club “is not a public accommodation for purposes of the ADA, despite evidence of ‘isolated incidents’ ” suggesting otherwise
• finding that “the occurrence of thirty-eight [non-member] events over the course of several years” does not “rise to the level of ‘regular’ or ‘indiscriminate’ use” by non-members
• finding private-club status despite plaintiff’s contention that he had been “waved through” to the property on approximately a dozen occasions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).