PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia woman’s lawsuit which accused the Vesper Dayclub in Northern Liberties of discriminating through its membership application process against prospective Black members has been settled.
Raina Stewart first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 17, 2020 versus Glu Hospitality, LLC (doing business as “Vesper Dayclub”), Vesper Holdings, LLC, Derek Gibbons and Tim Lu. All parties are based in Philadelphia.
The Vesper Dayclub is a members-only establishment which restricts its use to those who have successfully submitted membership applications to the club. The establishment consists of an age 21-and-over pool, expansive physical premises and neighboring bar and restaurant.
“Defendants attempted to create a daily atmosphere in a Northern Liberties club setting that would mirror that of a Hollywood or Las Vegas beach party with an enticement of a minimal application fee, exclusivity, and a culture that its clientele would desire on a continual basis,” the suit said.
“Defendants intentionally discriminated against black (and African-American) prospective membership (in general) barring their membership almost entirely, with the exception of permitting very limited black membership due to some with relationships, being well-connected, and/or being higher-profile individuals.”
Stewart said membership applications at Vesper Dayclub are made exclusively upon examination of an applicant’s social media profiles, irrespective of any credit check, financial data, criminal background review or any other information search.
“Plaintiff is a dark-skinned, African-American female. Plaintiff is a very reputable, honest and educated individual. She is a college graduate, professional, and works at Jefferson University. Nothing in her character would warrant any type of denial of membership. Plaintiff submitted an on-line application for membership on June 28, 2019. Plaintiff’s online profile showed several pictures of her, which clearly evidenced her being a dark-skinned African-American female,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff’s on-line application was submitted, she confirmed it was received, and she never heard back from defendants. She was never granted or accepted for membership; and instead, she was ignored and never received the courtesy of even a follow-up call, e-mail, or explanation for non-consideration (or in other words, rejection).”
Stewart said within the same general timeframe that she submitted her online application for membership, another prospective member named Mariam Dembele submitted her own online application. Dembele had numerous public photos on her social media evidencing she, like the plaintiff, is a Black female.
Also just like plaintiff, Dembele had her application ignored, she received no response, and was not granted admission or membership. The suit adds there was no character-based justification for Dembele’s rejection (through non-response). Dembele holds a bachelor’s degree in Journalism, and works as a professional in a reputable organization, the suit said.
“Within the same general timeframe of plaintiff’s application, two people whom plaintiff also knew, both of whom were Caucasian, both applied for membership to the Vesper Dayclub. They were Shannon Morton and Elizabeth Carpenter. They were both approved as new members within 24-48 hours (and of course received a response),” the suit stated.
“The experiences plaintiff had were demonstrative of systematic, intentional, and knowing racial discrimination against black and/or African prospective membership. The culture in which defendants aimed to create involved minimal if any Black representation within the Vesper Dayclub.”
Stewart also pointed to online postings criticizing Vesper Dayclub’s alleged lack of racial diversity and explained that given the high level of diversity in the Philadelphia area, there exists a “tremendous statistical disparity” in the club’s membership participation.
“While Ms. Stewart feels hurt by such a vetting process, she hopes to shed light on these practices which can have a discriminatory impact upon people such as her,” plaintiff counsel Christine E. Burke said in a statement.
UPDATE
In an Oct. 27 answer to the complaint, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a cause of action, was barred by the doctrine of unclean hands, was barred by the failure to name necessary parties, was barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of limitations and barred because the plaintiff was not denied membership.
“All decisions with respect to membership were made by defendants for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-pretextual reasons,” the answer stated.
In an Aug. 31 order from U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice, it was reported that the case had been settled. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“It having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action have been settled and upon order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ordered that the above action is dismissed with prejudice, without costs, pursuant to the agreement of counsel. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement,” the order stated.
The plaintiff was represented by Ari Risson Karpf, James P. Griffin and Christine E. Burke of Karpf Karpf & Cerutti, in Bensalem.
The defendants were represented by Barbara A. O’Connell of Sweeney & Sheehan in Philadelphia, plus John E. Ursin of Schenck Price Smith & King, in Sparta, N.J.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-03514
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com