Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) Newsgroups: net.legal,net.women Subject: ERA and bathrooms Message-ID: <5184@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Thu, 11-Oct-84 10:57:09 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.5184 Posted: Thu Oct 11 10:57:09 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Oct-84 06:03:46 EDT Organization: Ballistics Research Lab Lines: 26 If this subject has been already beaten to death, please forgive... Every now and then, in the discussion of the effect of the ERA, it is claimed (by the opposition, I guess) that having the ERA will mandate "unisex bathrooms". To me, this seems rather off-the-wall and incomprehensible, and I wonder if there is any basis in legal reasoning behind such a claim. 1) Currently, are there federal or state laws that mandate the existence of bathrooms at all (handicapped access regulations, building codes, occupancy standards, etc.)? 2) If so, are there laws that expressly require that bathrooms be designated as being for one or the other sex? Are there laws that then expressly prohibit members of one sex from entering bathrooms designated for the use of the opposite sex? (Do these laws apply only to public buildings, or to any commercial establishment, or to what?) 3) Does the claim about the effect of the ERA rest on the supposition that any such laws (from #2) would be declared void, because they make a sex-based distinction between persons? 4) Is this a valid claim? Will Martin seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA