Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 18.80.230 (2026)
Unlawful practices in places of public accommodation
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 18.80.230. Unlawful practices in places of public accommodation.
(a) It is unlawful for the owner, lessee, manager, agent, or employee of a public accommodation
(1) to refuse, withhold from, or deny to a person any of its services, goods, facilities, advantages, or privileges because of sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, race, religion, color, or national origin;
(2) to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail a written or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that states or implies
(A) that any of the services, goods, facilities, advantages, or privileges of the public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied to a person of a certain race, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, color, or national origin or because of pregnancy, parenthood, or a change in marital status, or
(B) that the patronage of a person belonging to a particular race, creed, sex, marital status, color, or national origin or who, because of pregnancy, parenthood, physical or mental disability, or a change in marital status, is unwelcome, not desired, or solicited.
(b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, a physical fitness facility may limit public accommodation to only males or only females to protect the privacy interests of its users. Public accommodation may be limited under this subsection only to those rooms in the facility that are primarily used for weight loss, aerobic, and other exercises, or for resistance weight training. Public accommodation may not be limited under this subsection to rooms in the facility primarily used for other purposes, including conference rooms, dining rooms, and premises licensed under AS 04.09. This subsection does not apply to swimming pools or golf courses.
(a) It is unlawful for the owner, lessee, manager, agent, or employee of a public accommodation
(1) to refuse, withhold from, or deny to a person any of its services, goods, facilities, advantages, or privileges because of sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, race, religion, color, or national origin;
(2) to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail a written or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that states or implies
(A) that any of the services, goods, facilities, advantages, or privileges of the public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied to a person of a certain race, religion, sex, physical or mental disability, marital status, color, or national origin or because of pregnancy, parenthood, or a change in marital status, or
(B) that the patronage of a person belonging to a particular race, creed, sex, marital status, color, or national origin or who, because of pregnancy, parenthood, physical or mental disability, or a change in marital status, is unwelcome, not desired, or solicited.
(b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, a physical fitness facility may limit public accommodation to only males or only females to protect the privacy interests of its users. Public accommodation may be limited under this subsection only to those rooms in the facility that are primarily used for weight loss, aerobic, and other exercises, or for resistance weight training. Public accommodation may not be limited under this subsection to rooms in the facility primarily used for other purposes, including conference rooms, dining rooms, and premises licensed under AS 04.09. This subsection does not apply to swimming pools or golf courses.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Gilbert v. Sperbeck, 126 P.3d 1057 (Alaska 2005).
Gilbert v. Sperbeck, 126 P.3d 1057 (Alaska 2005). “Gilbert Has Waived Her Claim for Damages Under AS 18.80.230. Gilbert’s complaint also alleged that Dr.”
McDaniel v. Cory, 631 P.2d 82 (Alaska 1981). “[9] He concluded that the admission policies of the disco constituted discrimination based on sex and race in violation of AS 18.80.230(1), [10] but that neither Don McDaniel nor Larry Lewis, as individual respondents, violated AS 18.”
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023). “2 See Alaska Stat. § 18.80.230 (2023); Ariz. Rev.”
United States Jaycees v. Richardet, 666 P.2d 1008 (Alaska 1983). “Richardet contended that the organization’s by-laws excluding women from full membership violated article 1, sections 1 and 3 of the Alaska Constitution 1 and the Alaska Public Accomodations Statute, AS 18.80.230. 2 The superior court rejected Ri-chardet’s constitutional claims,…”
Ratcliff v. Sec. Nat'l Bank, 670 P.2d 1139 (Alaska 1983). “220 (unlawful employment practices), AS 18.80.230 (unlawful practices in places of public accommodation), AS 18.”
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023). “2 See Alaska Stat. §18.80.230 (2023); Ariz. Rev.”
Johnson v. Tait, 774 P.2d 185 (Alaska 1989). “, AS 18.80.230. 12 As a matter of law, the rationale in the shopping center and university cases does not overcome the private autonomy of a small proprietor in the conduct of its business.”
United States Jaycees v. McClure, 709 F.2d 1560 (8th Cir. 1983). “15, 1980) (Jaycees is a place at which amusement or business services or commodities are offered to the public within the meaning of the Alaska public-accommodations law, Alaska Stat. §§ 18.80.230 (1), .300(7)); Fletcher v.”
Cole v. State Farm Ins. Co., 128 P.3d 171 (Alaska 2006). “AS 18.80.230. 21 . ''The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this sub-chapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce-.”
Michael Carey-Thomann v. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks & Bd. of Regents (Alaska 2026). “300(14)(A) (applying same definition of “disability” under AHRA). 21 See 42 § U.S.C. 12101 (“It is the purpose of this chapter .”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.80.230(1) — 2 cases
McDaniel v. Cory, 631 P.2d 82 (Alaska 1981). “[9] He concluded that the admission policies of the disco constituted discrimination based on sex and race in violation of AS 18.80.230(1), [10] but that neither Don McDaniel nor Larry Lewis, as individual respondents, violated AS 18.”
Johnson v. Tait, 774 P.2d 185 (Alaska 1989). “, AS 18.80.230. 12 As a matter of law, the rationale in the shopping center and university cases does not overcome the private autonomy of a small proprietor in the conduct of its business.”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.80.230(a) — 1 case
Gilbert v. Sperbeck, 126 P.3d 1057 (Alaska 2005). “Gilbert Has Waived Her Claim for Damages Under AS 18.80.230. Gilbert’s complaint also alleged that Dr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.