Chloe DeOnna v. Centre Hills Country Club
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
2022 WL 18028282 (2022)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Centre Hills Country Club (CHCC) (defendant), a Pennsylvania golf club, was exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c) and was managed by a nine-person board of directors. Usage of CHCC’s facilities was generally limited to CHCC members and their escorted guests. Membership required an application, sponsorship by a current member, a background check, and a board vote approving admission. Admission, which required payment of initiation fees and annual dues, automatically included the new member’s spouse, although the spouse was not included in the 400-person membership quota. Former CHCC employee Chloe DeOnna (plaintiff) sued CHCC for sex discrimination violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act. CHCC argued that it was not subject to Title VII because it fell under an exception for bona fide membership clubs exempt from taxation under § 501(c). DeOnna argued that CHCC did not qualify as a bona fide membership club because it was not private. In support, DeOnna showed that nonmembers occasionally had access to CHCC facilities during third-party events or golf tournaments and that CHCC had a public website, which DeOnna argued constituted advertising. The district court considered the parties’ arguments when ruling on CHCC’s motion for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brann, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 913,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 999 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.


