The Wing And A Prayer
A lawsuit predicated on the plaintiff’s denial of admission to The Wing survived a motion to dismiss in the United State District Court for the District of Columbia
The Wing
The Wing is an emerging “network of work and community spaces” that offers its members a forum for meeting and working, as well as other amenities and programming. Defs.’ Br. at 1, Dkt. 11. The company was founded in 2016. Id. at 3. In addition to physical work and meeting space, The Wing provides its members with on-site dining, gym, and shower facilities, plus meditation rooms and library services. Compl. ¶ 11(1)(h). In this way, The Wing resembles other co-working networks such as WeWork (one of The Wing’s major investors). Id. ¶ 11(1)(c). Yet The Wing differs from more traditional co-working spaces in that it is specifically designed for and marketed to women. Defs.’ Br. at 1–3. For example, The Wing offers screenings of female-directed films and presentations by prominent female politicians. Compl. ¶ 11(1)(h); Defs.’ Br. at 3. And it sells tickets to public events such as “Friday Night Feminism.” Compl. ¶ 11(1)(w). The Wing also produces its own print magazine called No Man’s Land. Id. ¶ 11(1)(x).
At the time this action was filed, The Wing operated facilities in New York City and Washington, D.C., and had arrangements to open additional locations in the coming years. Id. ¶ 8. To gain admission to The Wing, aspiring members were required to answer a few questions in an online application and pay between $215 and $250 per month. Id. ¶¶ 11(1)(k), (ll). As of September 2018, more than 26,000 people had applied to become members. Gelman Decl. ¶ 4, Dkt. 11-3. As of the filing of the plaintiff’s complaint, The Wing had over 1,500 members across all its locations, and at least 349 of those members used the D.C. location. Compl. ¶¶ 11(1)(hh), (kk)
The prayer for relief
Pietrangelo has adequately alleged that the sole reason for his exclusion from The Wing was his gender and that no other, non-discriminatory reason justified that exclusion. Naturally, The Wing disputes this allegation. But even assuming that Pietrangelo’s application failed to establish a commitment to The Wing’s mission, it is far from clear at this stage that The Wing would have viewed such a failure as a significant selection criterion at the time Pietrangelo applied. Indeed, it is not even clear that The Wing applied any criteria other than gender in evaluating prospective members. Although the complaint alleges that The Wing had many more applicants than members, see Compl. ¶¶ 11(1)(hh), (kk), it also alleges that the application process “was not rigorous or (significantly) selective,” id. ¶ 11(1)(ll), and that “there [wa]s little to no real investigation of applicants before they [we]re granted membership,” id. ¶ 11(1)(yy). More to the point, the complaint alleges that “The Wing’s only real membership criteria [wa]s being or identifying as a woman” and that “the membership device” itself “[wa]s simply a subterfuge to illegally exclude men.” Id. ¶ 11(1)(zz). As a result, the complaint alleges that “all or virtually all . . . women who appl[ied] for membership in The Wing [we]re either granted membership or [we]re put on waiting lists due to building capacities and [would be] eventually granted membership.” Id. ¶ 11(1)(aaa)
…In short, the extent to which The Wing actually evaluated its prospective members’ commitment to women—as opposed to their status as women—remains a contested issue central to the merits that the Court cannot resolve at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Dismissal was not appropriate on causation grounds or on the amount in controversy.
Nor is the controversy moot
The intervening event said to end the live controversy in this case is The Wing’s new membership admissions policy. Yet, at this stage of the proceeding, whether The Wing’s new policy has actually cured the alleged discrimination remains in dispute. For example, The Wing’s website describes the company as “[a] diverse community open to all.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 35 n.21, Dkt. 14. But it contained the same proclamation even before this action was filed—i.e., at the exact time the company concedes that it admitted only female applicants. Id. The Wing assures this Court of its recent commitment to equality, citing the “significant time and resources” it has devoted to the adoption and implementation of the new membership policy. Defs.’ Reply at 18. However, The Wing has yet to admit any male members or even adapt its facilities to provide a restroom open to men, without which it can hardly be considered a “diverse community open to all.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 34–35. Nor does The Wing claim to have reconsidered Pietrangelo’s application in light of its new policy, making it useless to him as a practical matter.
Judge Dabney Friedrich issued the order. (Mike Frisch)