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