Club , to admit the intervener, Donna Page, a female, to full membership in the Club, and requiring the Club to afford females the same benefits of membership as are afforded males. The commissioner had not awarded damages, and the judge remanded the case to the MCAD for an assessment of damages.
The Club appealed from the Superior Court judgment. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion, and we now affirm the judgment below. The case focuses on G. Section 98 provides in relevant part that "[w]hoever makes any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of In this case, the commissioner, whose decision was adopted by the full commission, did not hear the evidence.
The Club argues that, in the circumstances, the court should conduct an "independent de novo review" of the evidence. However, the Club does not argue that any of the commissioner's detailed and comprehensive subsidiary findings are incorrect or incomplete, nor does the Club even suggest that different findings would have more accurately reflected the truth.
Rather, the clear thrust of the Club's contention is that, based on the findings that the commissioner made, the commissioner's conclusions that the Club is a place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, and that it may constitutionally be compelled to admit women to membership, are legally incorrect.
Thus, we turn our attention directly to those questions. See G. See also Smith College v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, Mass. The Club does not dispute that it is a "place" under the relevant statute, see, e.
