The motel, also known as Motor Hotel, Motor Court, Tourist Court or Motor Inn, was initially a small hotel designed particularly for persons traveling by automobile, having suitable parking lots available. These motels serve business and leisure travelers and individuals going to meetings and conventions. There are many types of motels and a number of them are: overall service motel, local/chartered/express motel, chain/branded motel and super discount motel. The rates are usually affordable. A motel can be found in each town or city.

천안오피 There are three forms of motel lodging available in the United States: boarding, self-contained or serviced and live/stay-away motels. Boarding motels are usually located on plenty of land and there's a common entry/exit door and halls. There are a housekeeping service and a staff including maids and butlers.

The first motel company was set in Mississippi in the early 1960s. The initial motels appeared in many southern state because of the Jackson Hole Model Act. This was a legislative initiative initiated by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Alexander Hamilton that helped the motel industry across the nation. It established a normal operating code for all establishments. A motel for the first time turned into a bona fide business and a bona fide enterprise in its own right, when this act was passed.

The motel had to register with the secretary of trade and input into a registry that would stay until such time as it had been renewed. A motel was subsequently deemed to have full legal rights to advertise and sell its services. It was authorized to set its own rates for room rates and for furnishings and there was no limit on the number of rooms it could adapt. It was also authorized to regulate private businesses in the area by posting notices.

Since the motel had all these rights, the Mobile Manufactured Home Housing Division of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determined that it discriminated against African Americans in violation of the Fair Housing Act. On July 13, 1964, the Department of Justice announced that it was going to file a lawsuit against M & H Homes. The complaint alleged that the motel owner had maintained unlawful discrimination by keeping coloured and white customers and guests segregated. At that stage, the criticism was still sealed, and there had been no final decision about what form of relief the government would seek. There was no finding of actual discrimination.

On July 7, the United States Circuit Court for the Fifth Circuit in Toledo, Ohio affirmed the decision. Writing for the majority, Judge Clawson wrote:"A motel is a company that operates in a community with a considerable number of predominantly residential areas. There's absolutely no reason why a reasonable person could realize that the motel's practices prohibited the access of a black person to a white owned and operated motel." He went on to state that the proof revealed that M & H Homes' policy of refusing to provide its services to persons who are not members of the ownership or management household, and requiring all candidates for membership to undergo a credit report, was in effect a form of discrimination prohibited by the disparate treatment act. He also found that because of the discriminatory nature of the motel's membership policies, the motel was exposed to a disparate treatment against the equal protection and undue benefit enjoyed by white businesses under the disparate treatment act.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the district court's holding. Writing for a divided court, a three-judge panel has held that the motel had indeed established a practice of excluding African Americans from membership or access to its properties, but that the exclusion wasn't based on any discriminatory intent, as required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, the court has found that it didn't have jurisdiction to review the matter due to the exclusive power of Congress over the reservation clause of the Fort Apache reservation. Accordingly, the panel vacates the fourth cause of action. The panel further holds that although M & H Homes can be justified on the grounds of a'business reason' for excluding African-Americans, that reason doesn't outweigh the effect of the decision in effectuating a racial exclusion. Accordingly, the case is dismissed.

While the First and Fourteenth Amendments expressly afford protection to African-Americans against racial discrimination in areas of business, the decisions in this case don't support the broad proposition that a motel can be sued for racial discrimination solely because among its motel clients happens to be an African American. This case illustrates a harder question is presented when a plaintiff asserts that racial discrimination with a'lodestone motel manager' caused him to be denied service, rather than simply being a regular guest. Although we recognize the problem of answering questions of racial discrimination, we also recognize that it's for an array of reasons that some cases reach the courts. The vast majority opinion doesn't reflect any such concern. We concur in the judgment of the court of appeals, but suggest that the court make the questions of reasonableness even harder, as the facts in this case illustrate the difficulties inherent in determining whether racial discrimination is motivated.