may use the athletic and lodging facilities. No evidence is presented that these persons must be issued guest cards to make use of the facilities. This event, like much of the other use by guests, is a revenue generating event for the University Club.
In 1986, the EEOC issued a policy statement setting forth a revised definition of a bona fide private membership club. EEOC Compl. Man. (BNA) N:3171-73 (July 1986) (Policy Statement N-915) ("Compl. Man."). Although defendant disagrees with the particular application of this policy statement to its situation, it does not dispute that the general principles contained in this policy statement accurately state the law. The policy statement was intended to be consistent with Quijano v. University Federal Credit Union, 617 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1980). As Quijano makes clear, "private membership club" as used in Title VII is a narrow term. Id. at 132. Clubs that may be considered "private clubs" as that term is used in everyday conversation do not necessarily qualify as private membership clubs under Title VII's narrow definition.
Under Policy Statement N-915, three requirements must be satisfied for a bona fide private membership club. The organization must be (1) a club in the ordinary sense of the word, (2) private, and (3) require meaningful conditions of limited membership. Compl. Man. at 3172. The EEOC will consider the following factors with respect to the second element: "(1) the extent to which [the club] limits its facilities and services to club members and their guests; (2) the extent to which and/or the manner in which it is controlled or owned by its membership; and (3) whether and, if so, to what extent and in what manner it publicly advertises to solicit members to promote the use of its facilities or services by the general public." Id. at 3173. Additional factors may also be considered. In determining whether there are meaningful conditions of limited membership, "the Commission will consider both the size of the membership, including the existence of any limitations on its size, and the membership eligibility requirements." Id. The burden is on defendant to prove that it is a private membership club. Quijano, 617 F.2d at 132.
The University Club does not qualify as a private membership club because it is not private and it does not have meaningful conditions of limited membership. The uncontested facts show that the University Club permits guests to have essentially the same privileges as members. The uncontested facts also show that the persons the University Club designates as guests are not guests in the usual sense of the word. For example, there is no requirement that the "guest" be accompanied by his or her "host." Instead, the record indicates that members of the general public would have little problem finding some member of the University Club to be the formal sponsor of the guest regardless of any preexisting social relationship. Also, the University Club permits guests to have unfettered discretion in inviting further guests to the University Club, regardless of the secondary guest having any relationship with the sponsoring member. This includes permitting profit-making businesses to use the University Club's facilities to promote the businesses' pecuniary interests regardless of any pecuniary interest of the sponsoring member and without permitting the guest's use of the facilities to be open to the general membership. The University Club has also permitted employees to host events without going through the formalities of having a designated sponsor. Furthermore, the undisputed facts show that at a number of events, persons whom defendant characterizes as guests are permitted to use the facilities without being either accompanied by a sponsoring member or going through the formality of obtaining a guest card. The University Club's broad and open guest policy shows that it is not private, as that term is used in Title VII and the policy statement.
Defendant has also failed to show that it has any meaningful limitation for admitting new members. The only membership limitations that appear to be enforced to any extent are the requirement that resident and non-resident members have undergraduate degrees and be at least 21 years old. Beyond this, the University Club seeks to attract as many new members as possible, with financial motivations being one reason for seeking a substantial number of new members each year. Given that few applicants are ever turned down for membership and that no evidence is presented that applicants are significantly prescreened by sponsoring members, it cannot be found on the evidence presented that any meaningful limitations are placed on selecting members. This is true regardless of any formal or informal sponsorship and interview procedures that are used. For these reasons, plaintiff has also failed to satisfy the third element of the EEOC's definition of a bona fide private membership club.
This ruling should not be read as criticism of the current operations of the University Club. Rather the club does not fit within the narrow definition of a private membership club contained in the applicable statute. Today, the University Club is a private business and recreation club. As such, it should file the reports required of such organizations in order to furnish oversight information concerning equal employment opportunities in its work force.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted and defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant enjoining the University Club of Chicago, its officers, agents, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with it from failing and refusing to comply with the reporting requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) and 29 C.F.R. Part 1602. The University Club of Chicago is further ordered to file EEO-1 Reports for the years 1986 through 1990 within thirty days from the date of entry of this judgment.