ACLU: Teen ban at Birmingham theater is wrong

The ACLU of Michigan sent a strongly worded letter Tuesday to the Emagine movie theater chain, alleging that the company's ban on teens younger than 18 and not accompanied by an adult or not a member of its Birmingham theater is discrimination and urged the company to change it.

“Discrimination against teens based on blanket stereotypes is not only wrong, it is illegal,” Dan Korobkin, deputy legal director for the ACLU, said. “They should be able to watch a film without being targeted because of their age or banned because their families may not be able to afford a pricey annual membership.”

Paul Glantz, the Michigan company's cofounder and CEO, has said he enacted the ban because during opening weekend, about a half dozen teens were talking loudly and annoying guests and he wanted to ensure his guests had a good experience. Moreover, he added, customers have applauded the policy.

Several calls to Glantz on Tuesday were not returned.

Emagine theater in Birmingham bans unaccompanied teens

In addition, the letter from the American Civil Liberties Union — a nonprofit that aims to protect rights and liberties — raised concerns that the policy perpetuates perceptions of elitism and racism.

"This sends the message — perhaps unintentional but quite unfortunate — that teenagers from wealthy families can be trusted on your premises, whereas youth from less affluent backgrounds cannot," the letter said. "As you are probably aware, the wealthier suburbs of Detroit (including Birmingham) have a long history of being perceived as unwelcoming to residents of Detroit and its less affluent suburbs, with racial segregation playing a large part of that history."

One law professor, who has argued civil rights cases, said this is not a Constitutional issue because the theater is a private business, but it could be challenged under state law. Still, he concluded that if the theater's policy were taken to court, it likely would be considered a reasonable distinction between children and adults, not age discrimination.

"Basically, they're making a business decision that it will be a better movie experience if young teenagers aren't there," said Robert Sedler, a law professor at Wayne State University. "But, certainly, it doesn't keep out residents from Detroit. My prediction would be that the court would uphold it."

Emagine, a Michigan-based company, instituted the ban about three weeks ago after reopening its renovated theater in Birmingham.

The theater, which Glantz said reopened to sellout crowds, features a casual-fare restaurant, a bar with drink delivery service and bigger, reclining seats.

Glantz compared the theater’s membership program and atmosphere to a private country club, and said the new policy allows teens whose parents are members  to come without an escort. Members have their phone numbers on file and agreed to a code of conduct when they sign up.

Glantz said all of the teens involved in the incident that prompted the ban were Caucasian — and race played no role in the decision.​

He called the movie company's policy the "ultimate tough love," designed to ensure guests — particularly those who paid a $350 annual membership fee for special benefits — "get what they pay for," and that "people conduct themselves in a courteous way and act with civility."

News of the policy has fanned people’s passions on social media, immediately garnering both praise and scorn from both adults and teens.

It also has raised questions whether, in the long run, the decision makes the theater more appealing as a luxury destination for adults or cuts off lucrative customers, the young moviegoers.

In its letter, the ACLU said that the theater's policy is a violation of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

“To be clear, there is nothing wrong with any business ejecting individual customers, regardless of age, who are actually disruptive or otherwise engaged in inappropriate conduct,” the letter said. “What is unlawful under our state’s civil rights law is discriminating against an entire group based upon the bad acts, or anticipated bad acts, of a few.”

The letter urged the chain to rescind its policy. It made the case that the theater is a "place of public accommodation," and therefore it said it was not legal for the theater to ban teens because of their age.

The letter said it recognized distinctions between adults and children that are designed to protect kids — such as prohibitions on R-rated movies — but added that "it is clear that your policy is not based on a desire to protect children."

Sedler, however, countered that a case could be made that teens are not outright banned from the theater because they would be admitted with an adult; and, he pointed out that kids who are excluded from R-rated movies probably wouldn't consider themselves protected.