Howard Gault Co. v. Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1572,85-1572 |
| Parties | 128 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2890, 57 USLW 2035, 109 Lab.Cas. P 55,908 HOWARD GAULT CO., et al., Plaintiffs, Texas Citrus and Vegetable Association, formerly "Texas Citrus & Vegetable Growers and Shippers, Inc.", Plaintiffs-Counter Defendants, Appellants, Cross- Appellees, v. TEXAS RURAL LEGAL AID, INC., et al., Defendants, Cross-Appellants, Jesus Moya, Defendant-Counter Plaintiff Appellee, Cross-Appellant. TEXAS FARM WORKERS UNION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees Cross-Appellants, Delia Gamez-Prince, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. Joe BROWN, (successor in office to Travis McPherson), et al., Defendants- Appellants, Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Neil Norquest, McAllen, Tex., for Texas Citrus & Vegetable Assoc. and Joe Brown Ewers & Toothaker.
Michael E. Avakian, Terran W. Mast, North Springfield, Va., for amicus The Center on Nat. Labor Policy, Inc.
W. Carl Jordan, Thomas H. Wilson, Houston, Tex., for amicus Assoc. of Gen. Contractors of America, Texas Chapter.
Javier P. Guajardo, Mary F. Keller, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for amicus State of Tex.
William H. Beardall, Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., Farmworker Div., Weslaco, Tex., for Moya and Prince.
Edward B. Cloutman, III, Dallas, Tex., for Texas Rural Legal Aid.
David Van Os, Austin, Tex., for amicus Texas AFL-CIO.
Norma Cantu, San Antonio, Tex., for amicus Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund (in support of appellees Texas Rural Legal Aid).
Peter Linzer, Univ. of Houston Law Center, Houston, Tex., for amicus Texas Civil Liberties Union.
John Arneson, New York City, for Texas Farm Workers.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before BROWN, RUBIN, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges:
This case comes to us on appeal from a judgment of the District Court declaring inter alia, Texas Revised Civil Statutes (Mass Picketing Statutes) article 5154d Secs. 1(1), 1 2 2 and 3, 3 article 5154f 4 Secs. 2(b), 2(d) and 2(e), and article 5154g Sec. 2 5 to be unconstitutional. The District Court additionally held that the civil rights of Jesus Moya were violated by individuals acting under color of state law, and awarded damages. Gault v. TRLA, 615 F.Supp. 916 (N.D.Tex.1985). In a companion case also decided today, Nash v. Chandler, 848 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. June 30, 1988), the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas likewise held Article 5154d to be unconstitutional. We affirm in part and reverse in part the decisions of the District Courts that these statutes are unconstitutional. We affirm the decision of the District Court that Moya's civil rights were violated by persons acting under color of state law. The damage award is affirmed also.
This case arose out of two separate lawsuits which were consolidated for purposes of trial. Suit no. 127 raised the civil rights claim; suit no. 129 challenged the constitutionality of the Texas Mass Picketing Statutes. For purposes of this appeal, the two suits will be treated separately. Finding no clear error, we affirm the judgment awarding Jesus Moya $500.00 for the violation of his First Amendment rights by individuals acting under color of state law. The constitutional issues require a more detailed analysis.
Article 5154d Sec. 3, which criminalizes any oral misrepresentation without any standard of fault, is unconstitutionally overbroad and cannot stand. Likewise, article 5154g Sec. 2 is clearly an unconstitutional infringement on an employee's First Amendment right of association, and we affirm this holding of the lower court. Article 5154d Sec. 1(1) and article 5154f Secs. 2(d) and 2(e) unconstitutionally infringe on protected rights and interests. Article 5154f Sec. 2(b) and article 5154d Sec. 2 have been interpreted in such a way as to render them constitutional.
This case grew out of an attempt by the Texas Farm Workers Union (TFWU) to organize onion harvest and packing shed workers at the Hereford, Deaf Smith County, Texas onion fields. Delia Gamez-Prince, Jesus Moya and others acting for TFWU began establishing picket lines around certain onion fields in the area. At the height of the strike, several hundred demonstrators were on the picket lines.
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. (TRLA) is a federally funded legal aid organization with an office in Hereford. Several TRLA attorneys were at the picket lines on numerous occasions to render legal advice. The TRLA attorneys informed the workers of their rights and were present to mediate between the workers and the growers.
Seventeen growers, packers, and trade associations, determined to put a stop to the picketing, filed suit in Texas state court against the TRLA, the TFWU, individual TRLA attorneys who had been at the picket lines, and Jesus Moya. The suit alleged that numerous violations of Texas picketing statutes had been committed, including conspiracy to trespass, to block entrances, to use obscenity and to engage in illegal mass picketing. The suit also alleged that TRLA violated the provisions of the Legal Services Corporation Act by improperly spending federal money to support union organizing activities.
The attorneys who represented the growers, Roland Saul, Jerry Smith and Don Davis, were also employed by Deaf Smith County as Criminal District Attorneys. While preparing the growers' state court petition, these attorneys contacted the Texas Attorney General's office to discuss the constitutionality and enforceability of the Mass Picketing Statutes. At trial, the growers' lead counsel testified that he sought relief under these statutes because of advice given by the Attorney General's office. 6
The picketing statutes authorize county or district attorneys to institute suits for injunctive relief for picketing violations. 7 Conduct which would give rise to a criminal prosecution could thus easily be the subject of a civil lawsuit. In their official capacity, Saul, Smith, and Davis were vested with the authority to bring a criminal prosecution in the name of the State. As private attorneys, they were engaged to protect the interests of the growers. Throughout this litigation, all three attorneys appeared to view the picketing activities from both sides of the fence: as civil attorneys and as criminal prosecutors.
Attorney Saul interviewed several deputy sheriffs about the situation on the picket lines, and at trial admitted his interest encompassed both the civil and criminal aspects. Affidavits obtained by Saul from two of the deputies were used to support the issuance of the TRO. Attorney Davis met with deputies during the strike to explain the trespass and picketing laws. An investigator employed by the Criminal District Attorney's Office viewed the picket lines during working hours and reported his observations to Saul. 8 The District Court noted the interesting fact that the attorneys could bill the growers for a private lawsuit, while they would receive only their salary in a criminal prosecution. 9
The Attorney General of the State of Texas is authorized to advise district and county attorneys, but is expressly prohibited from giving advice to private civil counsel. 10 For this reason, the District Court concluded that the consultation between the growers' counsel and the Attorney General's office could only have been in counsel's official capacity as a criminal district attorney. 11
The growers filed suit in Texas state court on June 30, 1980, and a temporary restraining order was granted. The case was removed that same day by TRLA to federal District Court, where the TRO expired by its own terms on July 10, 1980. The TRO restrained the defendants (i) from placing more than two pickets within fifty feet of any entrance to the picketed premises or within fifty feet of any other picket; 12 (ii) from obstructing any entrance to any premises being picketed; 13 (iii) from using insulting, threatening or obscene language to interfere with or intimidate another worker; 14 (iv) from picketing which included slander, libel or publication of oral or written misrepresentations; 15 (v) from aiding or abetting any secondary picketing; 16 (vi) from establishing or aiding a secondary boycott; 17 and (vii) from establishing or aiding any strike or picketing which urged, forced or coerced an employer to bargain with a minority union. 18 The TRLA was also restrained from encouraging others to engage in any picketing, boycott, or strike, or from engaging in it themselves. 19
At no time was anyone arrested or threatened with arrest for picketing activities. 20 Law enforcement officials were present, but their only contact with the demonstrators was to warn them to refrain from blocking traffic or entrances, or from committing trespass. The sheriff of Deaf Smith County viewed much of the picketing activity, but saw no violence, no blocking of entrances, and no commission of any otherwise unlawful acts.
The sheriff and his deputies videotaped the picketing, using equipment borrowed from the growers. When the equipment broke down, the deputies were instructed to continue pointing the broken camera at the picketers, apparently for purposes of harassment. The sheriff himself recorded license plate numbers of all individuals entering and leaving the law offices of Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., regardless of whether they were suspected of any criminal activity other than picketing.
Following the issuance of the TRO the picket line dropped from approximately 200 workers to between 20 and 30 workers. Almost immediately picketers began to return to work. On July 21, 1980, the TFWU and Jesus Moya filed a counterclaim in federal court alleging violations of several federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
On July 1, 1980, TFWU, TRLA and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hobbs v. Hawkins
...(5th Cir.1985) (freedom of association implicated when city prohibits captains from joining union); Howard Gault Co. v. Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., 848 F.2d 544, 567 (5th Cir.1988) (unconstitutional to prohibit employees from forming minority union). No tax, license, or penalty was imposed......
-
US v. McDermott
...to nonstrikers as prohibiting "fighting words" and thereby surviving constitutional challenge); Howard Gault Co. v. Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., 848 F.2d 544, 561-63 (5th Cir.1988) (same); United Steelworkers of America v. Dalton, 544 F.Supp. 282, 286-87 (E.D.Va.1982) (same); Vietnamese Fis......
-
Bode v. Kenner City
...from engaging in political activity).176 Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 5 , 595 F.3d at 596 (citing Howard Gault Co. v. Tex. Rural Legal Aid, Inc. , 848 F.2d 544, 559 (5th Cir. 1988) ).177 Roberts , 468 U.S. at 629, 104 S.Ct. 3244 ; Grayned v. City of Rockford , 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.......
-
Suss v. AM. SOC. FOR PREV. OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
...v. Wiseman, 445 F.2d 792 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 404 U.S. 967, 92 S.Ct. 346, 30 L.Ed.2d 287 (1971); Howard Gault Co. v. Texas Rural Legal Aid, 848 F.2d 544, 552-57 (5th Cir. 1988). In Edmonson v. Leesville, the Court recognized as state action a private party's exercise of specifically dele......