Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 August 1999
• Docket Number: No. S054561,S054561
• Citation: 980 P.2d 846,87 Cal.Rptr.2d 132,21 Cal. 4th 121
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 980 P.2d 846, 80 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 643, 75 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,960, 15 IER Cases 594, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6144, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7877 Oscar AGUILAR et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants

Page 132

87 Cal.Rptr.2d 132

21 Cal.4th 121, 980 P.2d 846, 80 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 643,

75 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,960, 15 IER Cases 594,

99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6144,

1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7877

Oscar AGUILAR et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. S054561.

Supreme Court of California

Aug. 2, 1999.

McKenna & Cuneo, Curiale Dellaverson Hirschfeld Kelly & Kraemer, Joanne Dellaverson, Joel P. Kelly, Donna M. Rutter, John F. Baum, San Francisco, and Thomas A. Myers, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Appellants.

Bruce Adelstein, Los Angeles; Michael E. Rosman and Hans F. Bader, Washington, DC, for the National Writers Union, the Reason Foundation, the Libertarian Law Council and the Center for Individual Rights as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

J. Joshua Wheeler, for the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, Edwin L. Currey, Jr., San Francisco, Albert P. Bedecarre, Los Angeles, Mary Bossart Halfpenny, Adam M. Dodek; La Raza Centro Legal and Renee Saucedo for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Margaret C. Crosby, Ann Brick and Edward M. Chen, for American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Morrison & Foerster, William Alsup; Patricia A. Shiu, San Francisco, Jennifer Middleton, Claudia Center and Elizabeth Letcher for the Employment Law Center as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

GEORGE, C.J.

A jury found that defendants had engaged in employment discrimination, in part by permitting plaintiffs to be the target of racial epithets repeatedly spoken by a fellow employee.In addition to awarding damages, the trial court issued an injunction prohibiting the offending employee from using such epithets in the future.Defendants argue that such an injunction constitutes a prior restraint that violates their constitutional right to freedom of speech.For the reasons that follow, we hold that a remedial injunction prohibiting the continued use of racial epithets in the workplace does not violate the right to freedom of speech if there has been a judicial determination that the use of such epithets will contribute to the continuation of a hostile or abusive work environment and therefore will constitute employment discrimination.

I

The present appeal is from a judgment awarding damages and injunctive relief.Defendants have not provided a reporter's transcript of the trial proceedings, and have elected to proceed by means of an appendix in lieu of a clerk's transcript.We glean the following from this rather limited record.

In a first amended complaint dated April 26, 1993, 17 Latino employees of Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., sued Avis and 10 named individuals, alleging causes of action for employment discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)(Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq.), ¹ wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The complaint alleged that plaintiffs were employed by Avis as "drivers," at its San Francisco Airport facility, to move Avis vehicles among parking lots and from one airport location to another.DefendantJohn Lawrence was "the service station manager at the SFO AVIS location and was authorized to direct and control the drivers."The complaint alleged that Lawrence "verbally harassed [plaintiffs] constantly.He routinely called only the Latino drivers 'motherfuckers' and other derogatory names, and continually demeaned them on the basis of their race, national origin and lack of English language skills."(Italics in original.)DefendantKathy Black was alleged to have conducted a discriminatory investigation into the suspected theft of a calculator from a rental vehicle, detaining and questioning only Latino employees.In the course of this inquiry, a police officer was summoned and plaintiffs were told that the Immigration and Naturalization Service would be called if they did not cooperate.The calculator was found the following day, and Black apologized to plaintiffs.

On October 27, 1994, the jury returned special verdicts, finding as follows: PlaintiffsRamiro Hernandez, German Lazo, Oswaldo Ramirez, Carlos Reyes, and Mario Serrano were harassed or discriminated against by a supervisor, Black.Each of these plaintiffs was awarded damages in the amount of $15,000.PlaintiffsPedro Mojica and Orlando Peraza were harassed or discriminated against by Black and Lawrence.Avis knew or should have known of Lawrence's conduct with respect to these employees and took no action.Mojica and Peraza each were awarded damages in the amount of $25,000.PlaintiffMarcos Recinos was harassed or discriminated against by Black and Lawrence, but Avis did not know, nor should it have known, about Lawrence's conduct with respect to him.Recinos was awarded damages in the amount $25,000.PlaintiffMiguel Fonseca was harassed or discriminated against by Lawrence.Avis knew or should have known of Lawrence's conduct with respect to Fonseca and took no action, but Fonseca did not suffer severe emotional distress, and the jury awarded no damages.

On December 15, 1994, a hearing was held to consider plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief.Defendants argued there was no evidence of ongoing harm, nor any danger of ongoing harm, and the court responded: "Well, there was evidence presented sufficient for the jury to find that ... as to four plaintiffs who were working there, all of whom had a common characteristic, that is, that they were Latinos or members of Hispanic Latino racial ancestry, Lawrence had engaged in acts of harassment so continual and severe as to alter the working conditions for those people there, because that was the statutory test; [p] Secondly, that Avis knew or should have known of that harassment.It may be that the bringing of the action at the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the action here had a chilling effect on the harassment.But I want to make sure that that chilling effect survives the end of this process."

The court further stated during the hearing: "Well, the court is making a finding of fact based on evidence observed during the trial, that based on the evidence showing harassment and discrimination to the extent already commented on by Mr. Lawrence, there's a substantial likelihood based on his actions that he will do so in the future unless restrained."

On February 14, 1995, the court entered judgment awarding damages against Avis in the amount of $15,000 each to Hernandez, Lazo, Ramirez, Reyes, and Serrano, and damages against Avis and Lawrence jointly and severally in the amount of $25,000 each to Mojica, Peraza, and Recinos.The court also issued an injunction that stated as follows: "DefendantJohn Lawrence shall cease and desist from using any derogatory racial or ethnic epithets directed at, or descriptive of, Hispanic/Latino employees of Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., and shall further refrain from any uninvited intentional touching of said Hispanic/Latino employees, as long as he is employed by Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., in California.[p]DefendantAvis Rent A Car System, Inc. shall cease and desist from allowing defendantJohn Lawrence to commit any of the acts described in [the above quoted paragraph], under circumstances in which it knew or should have known of such acts; and shall further not investigate or permit investigations regarding breaches of its employment rules or practices when such investigations are limited to subjects or targets who are Hispanic/Latino employees of said defendant, unless the circumstances are such that no employees other than Hispanic/Latinos are reasonably subjects or targets of such investigation(s)."

The injunction further ordered Avis to post certain notices advising employees to report any instances of discriminatory or harassing conduct by Avis or its employees and to "publish a policy statement in English and Spanish delineating employee rights and manager responsibilities with regard to employee complaints of racial or national origin harassment or discrimination...."

Defendants appealed "from the mandatory and prohibitory injunction portion of the Judgment," providing the Court of Appeal with the reporter's transcript of the post-trial hearing at which the injunction was issued, but not providing the court with a reporter's transcript of the trial proceedings.Defendants further elected to prepare an appellants' appendix in lieu of a clerk's transcript.

The Court of Appeal concluded "that to the extent the injunction prohibits Lawrence from continuing to use racist epithets in the workplace it is constitutionally sound, but to the extent it reaches beyond the workplace it improperly exceeds the scope of the FEHA violation sought to be prevented and must be modified accordingly."The Court of Appeal reversed the injunctive portion of the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to "redraft the injunction in a manner that ... limits its scope to the workplace."In response to defendants' argument that the injunction's prohibition of the use of "derogatory racial or ethnic epithets" was vague, the Court of Appeal further ordered the trial court to add "an exemplary list of prohibited derogatory racial or ethnic epithets, specifying epithets such as those actually used in the workplace by Lawrence" in order to "more precisely warn Lawrence and Avis what is forbidden."Plaintiffs have not challenged the Court of Appeal's restriction of the terms of the injunction, but Avis and Lawrence sought review of that court's decision, arguing that the injunction, even as limited by the Court of Appeal, constitutes an improper prior restraint of freedom of expression.We granted review...